I send my condolences to the families of the hostages that have been killed in Algeria. We all live in hope that more people have survived this ordeal. Understandably the Prime Minister had to delay his speech.

I expected  Mr Cameron today to confirm that he wants the UK to negotiate a new relationship with the rest of the EU. He accepts that the UK cannot join the currency, fiscal, banking and political union the Euro countries are now pressing on with. He recognises the UK wants something much less than this full integration. We want to trade with them and be friends with them, not to be governed by them.

I expected him also to say that the British people have to be asked their view in a referendum. Many voters have never been asked their view, some others who were regret their decision to vote “Yes”, as they think the common market they bought was a misdescription of what has evolved.

The President of the USA had made another clumsy intervention in the debate in a way designed to annoy many UK voters. The UK has no wish to be America’s poodle chained to the EU kennel wall.

There will remain important  issues over when and how he will renegotiate, and when and how the British people get a vote. Send in your views in place of the speech.

What is extraordinary is the Labour and Lib Dem parties both rule out a renegotiation, and rule out a referendum. They say we must stay in at all costs, accept the current balance of powers, and avoid mentioning the fact that many UK people are not happy with our current membership. It is so unsual for two major parties to wish to be so cut off from maintsream public opinion on such a crucial issue. I suspect most of the country is united in thinking we need a new relationship, and in agreeing we cannot join the politcal union they are making.

 

       Bill Cash, Bernard Jenkin and I will be talking this morning about the differences between the internal or single market of the EU and a free market, or the common market that many UK voters thought they were signing up to in 1972-5.  Bill and Bernard have written a piece explaining the nature of the EU single market.

       All you need for a flourishing free market is the simple rule established in the Cassis de Dijon judgement – if a product is of merchandisable quality and can be offered for sale in one country, it can also be offered for sale in the other countries of the free market area. If France approves a French product for sale in France, the UK authorities should be prepared to accept the French decision and allow it to be sold in the UK. 

       The EU has developed something more and something different from this idea. They have used the concept of a single market to erect a vast legislative structure. They have sought to transfer more and more regulation from individual member states to the EU. They have sought to define, influence and control many products, services and industries in the name of the single market. They have  claimed that we need to harmonise laws, standards, employment rules, health and safety rules and much else besides to have a “fair single market. ”

          The single market programme was meant to have concluded in 1992. The member states solemnly signed up to around 300 Directives under qualified majority votes in order to complete the single market. There was a fanfare to launch it. We were all told it would make the EU as a whole richer, and would greatly expand the trade between the EU members.

           Instead, trade with non some EU countries grew more quickly than trade between the UK and the rest of the EU. The EU decided that it would take many more than 300 new laws to have their kind of regulated single market. They decided their market had to be a social market and include labour law. They saw all types of regulation as being part of the single market, from energy and renewables through to safety matters. Member states lost more and more powers and the EU gained more and more in the name of the single market. Some twenty years after the so called completion of the single market large law codes are still being wheeled out in the name of completing the single market.

            I suspect that most UK people and much of UK business does not want a single market if that means EU legislation on everything from food standards to transport, from financial services to health and safety.  We want a freer market, a common market, that allows trade but still allows member state decision making and differentiation.

           We should heed the European Parliament Fact Sheet which describes the current phase of Single market evolution. It says:

“The requirements of European integration suggest that the internal market should eventually culminate in a fully integrated market on national lines ….a single currency, a harmonised tax system, integrated infrastructure, complete freedom of movement of persons and legal instruments to operate effectively throughout the market”

           I am sure that this is what they are creating. I am not sure that is what so many UK advocates of the “Single market” have in mind.

 

            According to the polls the UK is a largely Eurosceptic country. It is full of people who either do not want to belong to the EU at all, or wish to be part of a free trade area or common market they thought they joined. There are very few who want to see the united Europe which France and Germany are building, and who wish the UK to be part of the emerging United States of Europe.

             For fifty years much of the UK establishment has taken a different view. They have either believed that the EU is just a rather grand single market, and we need to be in it for trade reasons, or they have used the cloak of trade to confuse the outlines of the emerging centralised government. Some thought the UK was struggling in the 1970s and needed German discipline and competition to sort us out. Some believed that the Exchange Rate Mechanism would control inflation and help our economy. Many went on to argue that we had to join the Euro, claiming the City and our other major economic interests would suffer badly if we stayed out. The collapse of  the ERM and the tribulations of Greece, Portugal andIreland within the Euro has not persuaded all of them that they were wrong.

          Today the Fresh Start Group of MPs will launch their proposals for getting powers back from the EU. They wish to see the UK regain full control over criminal law and justice, have an emergency brake to stop financial regulations we do not like through a country veto, and get back some of the powers over social and employment policy.

It would be a welcome start, but does not go nearly far enough for many Eurosceptics both inside and outside the Conservative party. It was Conservative party policy in opposition to repatriate our fishing grounds. It has long  been UK policy to undertake substantial change to the Comnmmon Agricultural policy to make it cheaper for food buyers. Many wish to see the UK regain control over its own energy policy and much else besides.

          There are the Come outers in UKIP constantly saying that the only answer is immediate withdrawal. They  assert that we need to withdraw without explaining how that is going to happen. There are the Better off outers within the Conservative Parliamentary party, who do work with others to try to limit further transfers of power and to start to shift things back. There are many suggestions on the combination of referenda, votes in  Parliament and clauses of the Treaty that could get us out or get us into a new relationship, but less thought about how the Eurosceptic majority can unite its forces to have its way.

 

           I thought the Mail was wrong to write an article recently condemning some police employees for having second jobs. It is quite common for people working shifts to have second jobs that they fit around the demands of their main occupation. Many in the fire brigade, or working for airlines do just the same.  Those enterprising police who do something else supplement their family incomes. They pay more tax, making a larger contribution to society. They share their second skill or enthusiaism with the public, or they carry out tasks that need doing that do not prevent them being alert and good officers for the day job. If your main job is only 40 hours out of a 168 hour week you should have options for the remaining 128 hours.

          Employees who do second jobs have made a decision about how they wish to spend their time that can  best be understood if we use yesterday’s distinction between paid for work and unpaid for work. If a policeman wants to earn more so he has more help at home with the  DIY or better holidays , who is to say he is wrong?

         I assume those who disagree think that the second job takes up too much energy of the individual, limiting their ability to do their main job. This is something which the employer can best judge by looking at results. Employers should not control how employees use their time away from their work contract, other than to avoid conflicts of interest.  Let us consider four different employees turning up for their day jobs to their private sector employer. (I am not now talking about the police).

            Ruth has a second job. She has set up her own dog grooming and dog walking business. She takes on animals for care and treatment at week-ends and in the evenings to earn extra money and because she loves animals. She always arrives at her main employer’s premises on time at 9 am. She also leaves promptly at 5pm to get back to her home and her other life. She feels she needs to offer good value for money and hard work when she is at her employer’s, and has a good record as an employee. She is saving for a bigger house,, and has delayed having a family until she has the property she wants.

          Christine is a single mother. She is also a good worker, but she often finds she has to ring in and say she cannot make it on time because the school run has delayed her, or because her young son needs to be taken to the doctors as he is sick. She finds juggling the demands of being  a good mum and an employee  are difficult. She always tries to make up any time lost for the employer, who is understanding.

          Geoff is a single 55 year old who is no longer in the best of health. He finds it difficult to sleep at nights. He often stays up watching football or late night movies. He likes to drink beer to keep him company when watching the tv. The next morning he is often below his best when he gets up. He is regularly late in to work, though tends to stay on late for a bit of company. His employer is not happy with his work rate or achievement, but is concerned about unfair dismissal legislation so has not done anything.

          George is an energetic 35 year old who can be a bit slapdash at work. He only does the job for the money, and is always talking and thinking about what he will do the minute he can get out of the workplace. He is busily building his own extension to his home. He rushes out at lunchtime to buy the materials he needs for the next week-end build. He also is a keen cyclist who likes to go off for long road runs. Sometimes when they are sponsored for charity he persuades the employer to let him go in firm’s time. He calls in sick  some Mondays or Fridays, as he  says he is giving himself a bad back from the building work he is doing.

          The question I have today is who is the best and the worst employee? There are many  excellent male employees, but in these examples I was more criticial of  the men  than the women in  common with the modern style.   Are second jobs always a bad idea, or can they be the sign of someone who is energetic and determined to do well?  Is  someone who spends a lot of his time on lesiure activities like watching sport and drinking necessarily going to be in better shape to tackle the challenges of the working day? Have you got some more types to introduce to liven up the discussion? (No named real people please)

 

 

                When the UK signed up to the free movement of workers and the single market, the idea was that anyone could come from the rest of the EU to get a job in the UK if they wished, and any UK citizen could do the same in other EU countries. Benefits were a matter for national governments to settle and pay for. The previous Conservative government was always careful to protect Parliamentary sovereignty on all welfare issues, regarding these as central to UK budgets and of vital interest to UK taxpayers and benefit recipients.

                Under Labour the free movement of workers elided into the free movement of  working age people, and the issue of welfare benefits was blurred between EU and UK jurisdiction. The precedent developed that anyone gaining a low paid job here in the UK from another EU country qualified for an expanded range of  in work benefits at UK rates paid for by UK taxpayers. It also became established that EU migrants using the EU freedom of movement provision could qualify for unemployment benefits. This drift was partly UK policy, and partly court judgements and pressures from the EU. I do not recall us having a major debate and vote in Parliament on the principle of more generous benefit distribution to EU migrants, but somehow we started to be more generous in eligibility to EU migrants than to migrants from elsewhere.

              Today many UK taxpayers and citizens think that when it comes to benefits EU migrants should be treated like working migrants from non EU countries. There is a growing worry about the generosity of our system to EU  visitors at a time of retrenchment in national welfare budgets.  Later this year the transitional provisions which limit the numbers of Romanians and Bulgarians that can come to the UK will be lifted. Many are asking how many people might arrive here, and what are the rules concerning in work and out of work benefits for them?

                The Prime Minister and other Ministers are well aware of the sensitivity of this problem. They are looking at ways of altering the current position without falling foul of EU rules and court decisions. The options seem to include:

1. Changing UK benefit rules to make them more based on contributions. If a person had to  contribute through National Insurance for a specified time, new migrants would not automatically qualify for such benefits. Young people who had been in school and College here for a specified number of years could also qualify. It is said that France and Germany have a system more based on contributions which is legal under EU rules.

2. Introduce a Work permit scheme for migrants from other EU states, which gives them the freedom to work here but does not give them access to the full range of benefits that UK citizens enjoy.

3. Negotiate a new  arrangement with the EU either over benefits or to prolong the transitional arrangements for entry of Romanians and Bulgarians.

           I appreciate many readers just want to pull out fo the EU altogether to avoid this kind of issue and re-establish our own national rules over all these matters. However, there is no sign of the current Parliament wishing to do this, so the government does have to consider how it can either negotiate a solution or find one within current EU law.

          The government does not wish to forecast how many people we might be talking about. The last Labour government had a hopelessly wrong forecast at the time of the admission of the last Eastern European members. As a result the UK  needed many more extra homes and jobs than was imagined in the official plans and forecasts.  The difficulty in guessing how many might find the UK attractive means there is even more pressure on the government to find a solution to this problem. The BBC has attempted to guess that it could be several hundred thousand. The truth is, no-one knows.

Steve Hilton, David Cameron’s former Policy Adviser, has set the cat amongst the pigeons by saying that only 30% of the Coalition government’s time and effort goes into doing what the Coalition and Ministers want. He tells us  40% is taken up implementing EU government directives, and 30% absorbed with what officials think they need to do. We are told by Mr Hilton that there is simply too much of this official government material  for Ministers to control or direct it all.  Steve Hilton’s comments about how government works need to be taken seriously.  It implies that Ministers are not sufficiently in charge. Parliament in consequence becomes a rubber stamp for Brussels and the civil service. He tells us that Number 10 often wakes up in the morning to hear on the radio or tv what the government is doing. Quite often what the government is doing is not to the liking of the Prime Minister.

When I was Chief Policy Adviser to Margaret Thatcher at Number 10 we knew what each department was doing. All major items of policy and new law had to be cleared through  the Cabinet and its committees. Matters within the control of individual Secretaries of State were  reviewed by the Prime Minister in a series of bilateral meetings that I recommended, so that colleagues could be assured of Prime Ministerial support for what they were doing.  Number 10 did not like surprises and made sure it was well briefed on all the main things, and the contentious things, that were going on. Prime Ministerial speeches were cleared with all departments, giving them a chance to warn us of any difficult developments. The twice weekly Prime Minister’s Questions briefings were detailed so the PM knew all the issues from each department likely to come up in the House.

In the 1980s there was some of  the same tension between the official government and the political government that Mr Hilton describes. The main disagreements were hammered out at the time of the compilation of the annual legislative programme. The official machine would trot out dozens of bills they wanted for the sake of “good government”. They always wanted a new Criminal Justice Bill, a new Companies Bill, a new Finance Bill to update and improve the law as they saw it. The political government would want various Bills to pursue its agenda – maybe a privatisation Bill or a Deregulation Bill. Some Cabinet members mainly supported the development of the political government’s agenda, others assumed the views of their departments and argued the case for the official government’s legislation. All accepted we could not do all that the original list set out, as Parliamentary time and the country’s capacity to absorb ever more laws and ever changing legislation is limited.

Those who favoured the civil service bills would argue that they were not “contentious” and were necessary for good government. Sometimes friendly Ministers argued  through for such a bill, only to find  it turned out to be very contentious with Parliament for some reason that no-one had bothered to study. The danger with the civil service bills was that they did upset some people, but had no great political advocates if they started to go wrong.  They often appeared in Cabinet and even in Parliament with insufficient political analysis and discussion. When they received their second reading in Parliament they did not have marked on them “uncontentious civil service bill” and the opposition did not necessarily let them   through easily. All Ministers did accept that the Bills became theirs, and there was a political process to adopt or reject them. Ministers were regarded as responsible for the policy and the bill, and expected to master it before appearing in the Commons with it. The Policy Unit at Number 10 was especially keen to read and draw out the consequences of the official bills, as they were political orphan bills if they started to go wrong.

Brussels legislation did not figure nearly so prominently then as now. The Margaret Thatcher government did end the veto for so called single market measures, the first crack in the dam of UK Parliamentary sovereignty over new laws. They turned down my advice to revert to the veto on all matters after an agreed group of single market directives had been approved under qualified majority voting. The Coalition government has arrived in office after the  dozens more vetoes have been surrendered in the Nice, Amsterdam and Lisbon treaties signed by Labour. As a result it is very difficult now for UK energy,financial regulation, agriculture, fishing, transport, trade and industry, and environmental Ministers to pursue a UK domestic policy, given the large amounts of law that come from Brussels. Mr Hilton is quite right to recognise that Ministers simply have to put through large amounts of new law at the request of Brussels, where they may have lost the vote or failed to amend it in the way they wished when it came up for decision in the EU.

Parliament enacts large quantities of legislation by Statutory instrument. These devices usually pass after 90 minutes of debate on a take it or leave it motion. The House cannot amend them. Statutory Instruments are now widely used to implement Brussels law. This short process avoids too much public gaze of just how much of our law is EU derived, and prevents most of it ever becoming a matter of political or Parliamentary dispute. Labour is especially reluctant to oppose measures which emanate from Brussels. None of the three main parties in opposition have wished to highlight the vast array of new law that is EU based. Coalition Ministers have continued with Labour’s practice of putting this all through in Statutory Instruments, and playing it down as much as possible. The press have gone along with this, rarely bothering to report the new laws coming out from this process.

The EU has become  an important impediment  to Mr Hilton and his like minded Ministers because it now regularly stops Ministers doing what they wish in big areas of domestic policy. Let us take an apparently UK based area, that of welfare benefits. This was meant to be a national issue to be paid for by national taxpayers. Now today welfare Ministers find that the EU has considerable influence over benefit eligibility, ensuring that recently arrived migrants from the rest of the EU do receive the same benefits as people long settled here who have been paying Income Tax and National Insurance over many years. The UK government is now engaged in expensive and complex court cases to try to establish what discretion it has left over who to pay benefits to.

So what can Number 10 do to deal with the problems of policy development and enforcement which Mr Hilton describes? Some of the problems are easily fixed. The Prime Minister does need to have carefully prepared bilateral with his leading Cabinet members to ensure there will be no surprises from their departments in future. Senior Cabinet members can in turn do the same with junior Cabinet members and Ministers of State in their departments. Number 10 can use the weekly Questions briefing to ensure they know all the politically sensitive things that are going on.  The Prime Minister and Cabinet need to use their ability to settle the legislative programme and their ability to determine which Statutory Instruments should  be taken to Parliament to get a better balance between what they want to do and what has to be done.

Tackling  the problem of too much government from the EU is altogether more difficult. Mr Cameron’s forthcoming  speech is a  big opportunity to explain to the country just how much of our government now comes from Brussels. He needs to set out how he would like in future to regain more control over how we do govern our own country. If he wants a UK energy policy, a UK criminal justice policy, a UK regulatory policy, even a UK welfare policy, there does need to be a change in our relationship with the EU legislative machine.  If there is not, there will be ever more frustrated Ministers having to do things they do not wish to do, and ever less consent from Parliament and the UK voters to  how they are being governed.

(This article was commissioned yesterday by the Daily Telegraph who then decided not to run it.)

 

         The latest figures show a further fall in manufacturing and construction output in November 2012. An improvement in oil and gas output provides some modest offset to the bad news. Many forecasters now think the UK economy fell again in the fourth quarter of 2012.

           This is quite a contrast to the USA. There they have made bigger cuts in public spending at the state level and have agonised over the fiscal cliff at the Federal level. Levels of debt and deficit are not that different between the two countries. They have continued to create more money through the Fed, just as the UK has done through the Bank of England. The US economy is growing at around 2% per annum.

           There are three big differences between the two economies that probably account for the better US performance. The first is the state of the banks. The second is the price of gas and general fuels. The third is technology.

          The single most important reason why the US is making more progress rests with the banks. The US banks took more action sooner. US property prices fell further faster. More of the bad debt was sorted out and cleaned up. US banks were made to take more capital, and most have now repaid the special money they received from the authorities. US money supply and credit is growing at a better pace as a result. Property prices have started to rise again after a very large correction. There are more mortgages available.

                 The UK has still not worked through enough of the bad debts and the difficult property lending. RBS is far from fixed. Such a large bank in such a condition retards the UK economy.

                 Cheaper energy is giving a big boost to US industry which is lacking in the UK with dear energy baked into EU and domestic policy. Quicker exploitation of shale gas is also adding to US output.

                 The US is still the world leader at applying the technology of the digital revolution to the products and services of the world.

                  The UK needs to catch up. Mending RBS would be the single most important thing to speed that up. Asset sales and controlled break up, creating new better financed banks that can compete and offer loans would provide a big boost to the UK economy. Cheaper energy is also vital for success.

 

 

If the USA, Germany and Ireland all think it’s worthwhile lecturing and hectoring the UK to stay in, we must be onto something with our proposal that we need a new relationship.  The change of government language seems to be waking the rest of the EU up to what a smashing deal they get out of  the UK’s current membership. They are understandably very reluctant to lose it or see it changed.

The EU gets large sums of our tax revenue to send to other parts of the union. They get great access to our fishing grounds. They make our companies follow detailed rules for everything they sell not just in the rest of the EU but also at home and in every other world market, whether those markets want those regulations or not. They get access to our labour market for anyone from the continent. Continental companies can have good access to our lucrative consumer market, and use it to sell us more than we sell them.

We are used to be threatened and being sent the bill.  I have lost count of the number of times I have been told “You will not have any influence” if the Uk demands some changes. My response is that we have no wish to tell Germany or France what to do, but we do wish to govern ourselves without EU controls on so many areas of policy.

I am sick  and tired of having to counter the lame threat that they will not trade with us anymore if we dare to ask for better terms or if the British people  vote to head for the exit.  They have no counter to my polite reply that I am sure the UK will wish to carry on buying BMWs and Mercedes after we have left the political, fiscal, banking and monetary union which is the new EU. Of course France and Germany will want to protect their trade with us and will understand that that requires mutual agreement and co-operation.

The government is right to point out that the UK cannot possibly join the banking, fiscal and political union now being created. We are not in the Euro and have no intention of joining it. It is in the EU’s interest to find a way of permitting good trade between the Euro area and the UK without expecting the UK to join the political union. The EU has to understand that there are two different types of member, Euro members and non Euro members who do not plan to join the currency. They have created the divide by making the EEC into such a centralised powerful international government. The UK never voted for that and most in the UK have no wish to belong to a United States of Europe.

The British people will ultimately decide this. In the meantime the UK government is right to explain the problem to the  other EU members and suggest it is in our mutual interest to sort it out amicably and sensibly. Lecturing us, hectoring us, or threatening us, is not the way to win the UK people over  to full membership of the EU. It is the way to drive a further wedge between Euroland and us.

         The Met Office lacks no certainty when it comes to climate change. It tells us that it now offers “weather and climate change forecasts for the UK and the world”. It seeks to forecast short term weather, ten year general climate, and 100 year climate cycles. It belongs to the school of thought which says that we are living through a period of global warming, and argues that has been brought about by human generated CO2.

          To reinforce the message the website is punctuated by the symbols of dangerous climate change.  There is a picture of a baked landscape, clearly suffering from excessive heat and no rain.  England in 2012 did not look like that anywhere. There is a thermometer obligingly showing 30 degrees C, a temperature we so rarely experience here in the UK. Today I thought I would share with you some of their more interesting forecasts  and statements from 2012.

February 2012   “Climate change and drought video”. The Met Office was warning us abouta serious  UK drought.

23 March   “The forecast for average UK rainfall slightly favours drier than average conditions for April-May-June  as a whole….the water resources situation in southern, eastern and central England is likely to deteriorate further during the April-May-June period”

 

End 2012   ” the second wettest year in the UK dating back to 1910 … with April and June being the wettest on record.”

“Throughout the year (2012) accurate forecasts and warnings from the Met Office have helped everyone…”

The mean temperature for 2012 was 0.1 degrees C below the 1981-2010 average.

On December 24th they lowered their ten year temperature forecast based on a new model.

This record invites a few questions:

Do the Met office agree there has been no warming for the last decade?

Do they agree that  world temperatures can be increased or diminished by solar action? How do they model that?

Do they agree that the move to  the Medieval Warm period and then back  to the Mini Ice Age was unconnected with human CO2? How do they model for similar changes in the future?

Is their current forecast for mild wet winters and hot dry summers in the UK as global warming progresses? That was what they were saying in their general climate change views.

Could the change in currents and winds that gave us cold winters and cool wet summers recently affect future years?

What is the role of water vapour as a greenhouse gas? What influence can human conduct have on water vapour and cloud formation?

Wouldn’t it be a good idea to concentrate their money and research on weather, and try to improve the accuracy of the forecasts for the next few months, rather than attempting ten year and 100 year forecasts?

 

 

 

           The USA was founded through a popular revolt against foreign rule. Many UK citizens admire the American revolution, and the mighty statements of democracy the founding fathers made in their cause.

           It is a crowning irony that the Obama administration now thinks the UK should be subservient to Brussels rule in many areas, just so the US has a more acceptable lobbyist at the EU court.  The US stance will probably recruit more UK citizens to the cause of new and different relationship with the EU for the UK. We wish to be self governing.

           We have no wish to be told that  we should lose our democracy in the cause of advancing America’s.