Redwood Amusement

It’s always amusing when you hear someone tell you that a particular Conservative MP is secretly very much anti-EU despite that Member of Parliament completely lacking any kind of public comment backing up such a statement.

One such friend of mine claims that John Redwood would privately like the United Kingdom to leave the European Union. Now, I can’t say I agree with my friend that John Redwood is secretly in favour of leaving the European Union.

If John Redwood was really so much in favour of the UK leaving the EU then he would have said something about it by now – but surprise, surprise he hasn’t.

Rightly or wrongly (and I would argue that it is probably wrongly), John Redwood is still held with some regard by Conservative party activists and lesser backbench MPs. If John Redwood were, for example, to sign the Better Off Out campaign pledge (okay, David Cameron has banned all Conservative MPs from doing so, but he could still be defiant) then many other Conservative MPs and activists would look at his actions and think that, well, if John Redwood has done something like that then so can I. The number of signatures to Better Off Out would surely increase.

Click here to continue reading the article…

Media In Focus

Following on from my previous post about how, in a time of great financial crisis, many in the media have got their focus and priorities entirely wrong, another fantastic example of such wings its way to us via the ever-relevant BBC website.

The BBC are reporting that porn protesters have hit Westminster to complain about new laws that will ban the possession of extreme images showing ‘a threat to life or serious injury to a person’s genitals’. Wonderful stuff as you can imagine.

Now, the protest consisted of a mere twenty people and it would seem that as a consequence the BBC felt the issue of violent pornography and yesterday’s march warranted an entire news article on their website with an accompanying video.

However, compare this with the level of coverage two other past protests held outside the Houses of Parliament in Westminster gained that concerned calls for the Government to honour its manifesto commitment to give a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

The first was back in October of 2007 and the second in February of this year, both of which I was in attendance. Now, the Referendum rallies were not mass protests on the scale of the million strong Countryside Alliance or Stop The Iraq War coalition marches – but they were still pretty sizeable with a couple of thousand people in total, and very many more than the twenty individuals at yesterday’s ‘porn protest’. Yet did the BBC (or any other news agency for that matter) cover the Referendum protests? The answer is of course, no – they did not. Not once.

Calling for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty did not just concern a few sick and depraved individuals wanting to photograph one another performing bizarre sexual acts, but the freedom, liberties and democratic rights of an entire nation of millions of people.

Yet, it is apparent that the BBC and most other news corporations hold the discussion of the laws on violent pornography more important than whether we wish to be a sovereign nation. Even the professional photographer and ringleader of the porn protesters, Ben Westwood (son of fashion designer Vivienne Westwood) acknowledged that:

There are more important issues to be debated than this.

In that Mr Westwood is entirely correct, but it would seem that large swathes of the media would disagree. Sadly, some things it would seem never change.

Media Priorities

Sam Tarran makes the point (first noted here) that while our banking system undergoes massive regulatory failure, the media busy themselves with the massively important issue of whether George Osborne has been receiving donations.

To put things into perspective, the Governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King recently admitted that:

Not since the beginning of the first world war has our banking system been so close to collapse.

Compare such an alarming statement on the state of our banking system and economy with the BBC’s Political Editor, Nick Robinson and his account of George Osborne’s trip to Corfu. Someone’s journalistic priorities in the wrong place, wouldn’t you say?

A Taxing Problem

David Cameron has called on the Government to allow small and medium-sized businesses to defer their VAT bills for up to six months due to the pressure they are coming under in the current banking credit crisis.

Despite the fact that our Westminster Labour Administration would not be particularly favourable to such a plan – at face value it sounds like a good idea, doesn’t it? Well sadly it’s not – and here’s why, as Dr Richard North kindly explains:

There are, however, just one or two tiny little problems with this idea. VAT is, of course, an EU tax, implemented via the VAT 6th Directive. A payment holiday on VAT would amount to a de facto reduction in the rate of tax, which is not permissible without the unanimous approval of all 27 EU member states, following a proposal to that effect from the Commission – which it not required to deliver.

That, though, might be the least of Mr Cameron’s tiny little problems. Member states are required under EU law to collect VAT, a proportion of which goes to the EU coffers – known as the ‘own resource’. Collection procedures are also defined by EU law, requiring the imposition of penalties on late payment – typically one percent per month. Changing these procedures unilaterally, guess what, is not permissible without the unanimous approval of all 27 EU member states, following a proposal to that effect from the Commission – which it not required to deliver.

Under certain circumstances, member states are entitled to adopt a simplified procedure for charging VAT, under Directive 2006/69/EC, but that does not include any provision for delaying tax payments. To the contrary, the Directive allows special provisions to enable member states to “prevent distortion of competition,” which rather shows where EU priorities lie.

If these hurdles were somehow to be overcome, however, unilateral action by the UK in offering a tax holiday would certainly be considered a ‘distortion of competition’ under Single Market rules. At the very least, Commission permission would have to be given, which will not necessarily be forthcoming.

And, since Mr Cameron’s proposals affect only small and medium-sized businesses, larger firms might be moved to complain. A company like McDonalds, for instance, would have a just complaint. It regards itself as a ‘group of small businesses’ under one banner. Fighting as it does for market share in competition with other high street outlets, it could argue that different rules on payment would most certainly distort competition.

There is also the matter of state aid. Broad-brush aid – which includes tax-breaks of any form, directed at one sector rather than applied uniformly – would most likely be considered illegal. At the very least, Commission approval would be required, which might not be forthcoming.

Then there is one other tiny little detail. Numerous studies – not least this one - have drawn attention to the danger of deferred VAT payments, making the system even more vulnerable to fraud. This is already a massive problem. Would Mr Cameron want to add to that problem?

David Cameron is calling for something which is practically unachievable. I’m just passing on this important message in case anyone is reading…