Tag Archives: Tony Blair

European Energy Crisis – Angela Merkel’s Legacy with lapdog Tony Blair

Yet again Europe is in turmoil, how short their memories giving Russia the opportunity to expand their influence. At the heart of these woes, we have an insane energy policy legacy promoted by Angela Merkel leaving many dead and many others displaced in Ukraine and a country ravaged by the despotic Vladimir Putin. These events have revealed the true, arrogant, and naïve nature of the EU. Where would the UK be if still a member? Remember 2014 when Putin annexed Crimea, mainland EU was so shackled to Russia by the lunatic dependency for most of its energy needs the UK could not act to stop him. Even then Europe did not learn the fundamental truths of energy strategy – never depend on a pariah State for anything.

Prior to Tony Blair becoming prime minister of the UK the UK was energy independent. The UK had nuclear, coal, and gas & oil from the North Sea. But energy infrastructure needed upgrade as existing generating capacity was approaching the end of its useful life. Blair preferred to spend money on social projects to boost his populism. Many citizens recently expressed their resentment at Blair receiving a knighthood because he blindly followed George W Bush into Iraq. History will show that his domestic crimes were far more serious, impacting people for generations to come. Not least of his crimes he degraded the educational system in the UK labelling Colleges of Further Education and Technical Colleges as universities encouraging some 50% of students leaving secondary schools (whereas only some 24% are needed) to attend university for nebulous degrees that would not attract employment and burdening these students with onerous debts that shackled them from starting their lives on the property ladder. He also pandered to the people promising them cradle to grave financial security as an entitlement without any incentive to work leaving the Treasury bare when the Conservatives first took power even after selling half of the gold reserves and lucrative telecoms licences. But even worse he blindly followed Merkel into the Lisbon Treaty and her energy policy of not only continuing the Nord Stream project set up by her predecessor Gerhard Schröder (now Chairman of Gazprom) to provide gas from Russia to Germany but then starting a second pipeline Nord Stream 2 which the USA condemned as strategic lunacy. I wonder what reward she has been promised by Putin for surrendering the EU to his mercy.

Having engaged with Putin when he was a KGB officer my profile would be small man, big ego, and desperately in need of a legacy. He has brutally suppressed any opposition to his dreams of fame, brain-washed the public to suit his ambitions, and will not stop at the savage slaughter of innocent people in the pursuit of his legacy. However, it should be now clear to him that history will record his legacy as infamy in the ranks of Hitler and Stalin. But his ambitions were obvious years ago so why did the West, especially Germany and the EU foster his narrative? I must admit that in January I thought Putin was posturing for international recognition for the annexation of the Crimea into Russia as his legacy. I have yet to understand what caused him to flip into war with Ukraine as it is clear this mission was not well planned as can be seen by the losses to the Russian armed forces.

The UK had its hands tied as a member of the EU in 2014 when Putin annexed Crimea even though voices were loud and clear of what was to come should this annexation be allowed. But, just as today, Germany is so dependent on gas and oil from Russia they cannot risk offending Putin lest he closes the pipelines. The Germans today demonstrate their fear of reprisals with their limp offers of help to Ukraine. For the third time in 100 years the UK is leading the charge to bail out Europe because of the failure of Germany. I hope the EU member States crush the influence of the German elite in the EU going forward or, better still, collapse this il conceived union which many member States have paid dearly to support the incompetence of the likes of Merkel.

When Switzerland announced it would follow Germany in ending nuclear power as part of its energy mix, I explained to a Swiss Federal Councillor the lunacy of sacrificing its energy sufficiency which would result in consumer energy prices doubling in just two years. Thankfully they reversed this policy. Today my projection on pricing is more than validated.

What confounds me is why Merkel originated Nord Stream 2 when a far cheaper, more strategically astute solution was available. In 1998 I was engaged to structure the financing of the development and production of onshore oil & gas reserves in Azerbaijan for which I needed a credible long-term offtake agreement having previously structured the first international public financing of oil & gas development and production for Russia and thus understood the risks involved. My proposed strategy was to pipeline the gas to Constanta in Romania, and then continue the pipeline under the River Danube all the way into Central Europe. Easy, out of sight, and significantly cheaper. Dual sourcing is always far superior to all eggs in one unreliable basket. Now the Chinese have control over the Azerbaijan gas.

I hope the Green lobby, especially in Germany, learn from the spilt blood of the Ukrainian people that mankind does not have the illusionary attributes of King Canute. Climate change is a fact of life on this planet. Every time some young activist with little or no understanding of the world approaches me to insist I take climate change seriously I ask them to answer one question. ‘If we were standing having this conversation on this spot some 10,000 years ago, we would be standing on some 10m of ice. Where did it go? In our more recent 4,000-year history how many ancient cities are now under the sea?’ As the industrial revolution is less than 250-years old this question always ends the conversation. Whereas I have strong views on pollution, especially in our incredible oceans, I have heard no reasonable argument to suggest that man adds much to climate change. For example, the moon is likely to have more impact on our climate over the coming 6-years than mankind as it wobbles its way to its new orbit. And, as for methane emissions, do these activists understand anything about the Bermuda triangle, or the structure of the world’s continental shelves? Full of methane just waiting to escape into the atmosphere in vast quantities as witnessed before the cameras in the BP accident in the Gulf of Mexico a few years ago. Carbon digestors exist today but who will pay? The solution to particulates in diesel existed in 1994, and thus Governments pushing the switch to diesel engines, but the solution would force Governments to reduce duty on diesel because of the higher cost to produce. Instead of 0% sulphur content (the source of particulates when burnt) politicians throughout the EU settled for 5% sulphur. Let not a little pollution get in the way of tax revenues. Electric cars is another diesel catastrophe if only the people will open their eyes, and stop listening to so-called ‘experts’ – the most degraded word in the English language in the past 30 years. As has been proven during the Covid pandemic scientists should never be allowed to drive policy – but neither should inexperienced politicians with little or no understanding of the real world. In any event, money and greed is by far the largest polluter on this planet.

You might ask why I have yet to criticise the UK Conservative Government. The UK could, and should be energy self-sufficient. An astute Government would also ensure that the UK is not subject to market pricing for home-grown production as in the USA. However, David Cameron dithered over replacement of our base load generation. Teresa May sold the UK down the river to the EU and added insult by creating law to make the UK carbon neutral by 2050.

Boris Johnson has forgotten Conservative values and cowered to the green agenda leaving our base load requirements in jeopardy and listening to lunatic activists regard oil, gas, and coal. However, a Labour Government would fare worse.

 I hope this current energy crisis is a total wake-up call to the current UK Government that 2050 carbo neutral is only an aim, all other energy requirements being a priority. The UK must activate all North Sea assets, ensure control over pricing within the UK for new fields with priority supply to the UK, start fracking immediately to cover the short-term gas needs, re-activate any moth-balled generators needed including coal, and mine any required coal, i.e. return to energy self-sufficiency as quickly as possible. How many people know that the UK has substantial gas storage facilities, some owned by Centrica and the other by EdF. From what I can glean the Government would not support Centrica in the maintenance of these strategic reserves, and EdF emptied their vast facilities because of possible fracking in the region. Thus all of the UK’s strategic gas capacity was empty in December. I also understand that the UK is now supplying gas to the EU to keep them afloat.

The Green levy and VAT on energy bills should be immediately rescinded. The UK Government needs to accept that they cannot blame the inflation in the economy on commercial pressures – current inflation is almost totally inflicted by Government incompetence, with a nominal amount due to the Covid pandemic, but again much incompetence on the part of the Government regarding lockdowns. The nuclear reactors developed by Rolls Royce should be quickly installed whilst larger facilities are built. Rather than tax the energy companies regarding their enormous windfall profits from consumers encourage them to sell their energy to the UK network at a cost over production for UK sourced energy assets.

As a footnote I listened to a conversation last evening on GBNews between Nigel Farage and Dale Vincent, founder of Ecotricity. Dale’s rose-tinted spectacles sees a UK using only renewables for all its needs as the sun will always shine and the wind will always blow. And he proclaims this will be the cheapest solution. If this is true, why the onerous green levy on current energy bills? And, by the way, peaks in electricity demand will be controlled by removing civil liberties from the people penalising them for collectively putting on the kettle at half time during the Cup Final. Thankfully Nigel told him on air that he didn’t believe a word of it. We are doomed if the energy policy makers listen to such fantasy.

When all costs are taken into consideration wind turbines are not cheap, nor are they eco-friendly not least because the turbine blades require replacement every 2-3 years and are not recyclable. What do the eco-warriors suggest we do with them?

Renewables are a tertiary source of power generation and will only become a secondary source when there is a commercially viable battery storage capability which will certainly increase the total consumer price above gas or nuclear. Just as with EV cars once the battery is depleted it is useless until recharged. As a former nuclear scientist, I see no identifiable renewable that can generate 24/7 base load. The wind turbine I can see from my study window was turned off over the Christmas period for 2 days because the wind was too strong and gusty – these turbines have a limited operating window for wind speeds.

If we switch to thorium reactors (invented in the UK – see earlier blog) which are about a third the price and build time of uranium reactors we have a secure, safe source of 24/7 base load with no nasty decaying legacy – truly clean energy at an affordable price below renewables.

Advertisement

BREXIT – The Use and Abuse of Political Statistics

The European Elections delivered a fragmented wake-up call to Brussels; a comfort in political terms, but hardly a vote of unity. As per usual politicians from all factions engaged with the use and abuse of statistics to shed some light on the outcome in their favour, even if only to say their message needs to be clearer.

Within the UK it would be laughable as these inept politicians squirm if the issue upon which they have failed the electorate is not such a challenge to the UK constitution.

What we saw in the UK was a fledgling BREXIT Party who platformed honouring the 2016 Referendum vote to leave Europe with or without a deal. They polled 32% of the vote and won 29 MEP seats. By far the winner. General Elections have been won at this level of vote.

Then we have the Liberal Democrats who platformed a single message of scrap BREXIT and remain in the EU. How a so-called democratic party can ignore a clear democratic referendum outcome is beyond me, but they polled just 20% of the vote and won 16 seats.

Following them we have the Greens which I think is a singular, more idealistic vote. I would suggest, based on the fact that all interviews I witnessed with Green Party officials and candidates regarding BREXIT reverted to climate change within 30 seconds of the interview, that the issue of political remain or leave was not a factor in such votes. If one believes the commentators, the Greens attracted predominately younger voters who may not have a political view/understanding of BREXIT, or are more preoccupied with climate change and want a voice. Thus, I don’t think it statistically robust to consider the Green vote in the leave/remain argument.

I think that the above parties all profited from a unifying sense of belonging to a singular cause.

Of the remainder there will always be the hardcore Labour or Conservative voters who have always voted in a singular way. We don’t know with any reasonable accuracy where any such voter stands on the leave/remain argument.

The remainder of smaller parties are a mix of rebel causes on the fringes of the system. If there is an argument to put any one of these parties in either camp, then you would also argue that the UKIP vote should be added to the BREXIT Party vote. The sum of these votes does not change the political landscape, so again not relevant to the argument.

In 2016 the result of the Referendum was 52% in favour of leaving the EU. The polarised nature of this result has fragmented and frustrated politics since – a clear demonstration that UK politics is neither democratic nor fit for purpose. Why ask for the majority will of the people who turned out in numbers never before seen in any election, and then ignore it? The European Election results would suggest that Nigel Farage is right. Leavers have hardened to some 60%.

Since then the anti-democratic remain side of the argument has tried everything to scupper BREXIT bolstered by Teresa May’s deal that cannot possibly be approved whilst it challenges the sovereignty of the UK. No true, blue-blooded Brit will allow sovereignty to be under the control of Brussels. It is clear that the backstop agreement is fully intended to be activated with the only way out for the UK is to concede Northern Ireland back to the Republic of Ireland – the game that Leo Varadkar has been playing all along. It will be interesting to see how he feels when staring into the face of a no-deal with the consequences to the Republic losing its largest trading partner. Ireland’s economy decimated again? For sure Teresa May will go down as one of the worse Prime Ministers ever, even worse than Tony Blair.

The motion passed through the House of Commons taking a ‘no-deal BREXIT’ off the table was a shambolic demonstration of abuse of the political system. The EU will only capitulate to a sensible deal when they are faced with ‘no-deal’ as the real alternative. As professional negotiators well know all options must be on the table, and it is certain that the EU will capitulate at the eleventh hour if no-deal is the option facing them – with most of the EU either in or approaching recession they cannot afford this outcome. There is no such person as a hardliner Brexiteer. They are the people who understand the protocols of negotiation.

Jeremy Corbyn has always played politics with BREXIT pushing for a General Election rather than respect the BREXIT result, relying on the younger, gullible voter who will believe promises that cannot possibly be delivered. Opportunist indeed, but I think be careful what you wish for. Climate change has captured the imagination of this younger voter so they can easily drift to the Green Party as throughout Europe. Then we have the hardcore Labour constituencies who voted for BREXIT and demonstrated their disdain with their party by voting for the BREXIT Party. If the BREXIT Party do indeed contest a General Election, I would reasonably expect Labour supporter to move to the BREXIT Party thus decimating the Labour Party. Justice indeed.

As for the Conservative Party the ill-consider snap election called by Teresa May without any understanding of her failings in the Party Manifesto find themselves in a difficult position and need to bring their own MP’s fully into line and then attract dissenting Labour MP’s in fear of losing their seats if they are not seen to support BREXIT to restore order to the BREXIT process. Perhaps it’s time to ask local constituency party association officials to encourage their MP to back the party or surrender their seat to someone more understanding of collective co-operation and respect democratic outcomes.

The UK now need a capable Prime Minister who understands how to negotiate with the EU. A no-deal option must be on the table, and a hard position taken with the EU with the certainty that no-deal will be the outcome should the EU not take a more reasonable stance.

Unifying the UK is best addressed once the people see that all the remain fear tactics are nonsense, even with a no-deal outcome. The UK is the fifth largest economy in the World and has global influence the EU can only dream of. The EU cannot ignore the UK.

The European Elections have pushed the real statistics back in support of BREXIT with, or without a deal, knowing an agreeable deal will most certainly be forthcoming from the EU at the final hour. The other statistic that will be interesting to watch is how many of our current MP’s are serving their final term as in the next General Election voters express their wrath with them for failing to respect the majority will of the people.

 

EU/Eurozone – Start Again or Plod On? – Taxation

Image

EU/Eurozone – Start Again or Plod On?

Taxation

Taxation is the instrument of State that provides the income to service the functions of government. It can also be used to incentivise investment, to change behaviour, and to redistribute wealth.

Within the EU today each nation state has its own tax regime plus a tax to fund the various organs of government of the EU – notionally VAT.

The disparity of tax regimes and the effectiveness of collection throughout the EU is almost a north/south divide. The Mediterranean nation states have proven poor at tax collection much through corruption and black economies, and thus their current dilemma. The more Northern nation states have reasonably good collection and little or no corruption.

Years of attractive stimulus for businesses by providing complex tax incentives are now coming home to roost. The desperate need by governments for new sources of tax revenues has unleashed wrath on major corporations who are certainly exploiting the available tax incentives albeit, by and large, they are not contravening statute. However politicians are suggesting that these businesses have a moral duty to pay more tax, thus whipping up the flames of anger among the electorate, and working with other governments to do the same in order to close the door on these businesses relocating – a coup. It will be interesting to see how these corporates respond to this approach as they have a right to think it a breach of faith. Not that I support their position as I have seen smaller, developing states essentially raped by corporates forcing their terms onto inexperienced struggling governments just trying to bring some wealth creation to their country. Furthermore I have already mentioned in a previous essay that corporates have a moral duty to the welfare of their staff and immediate environment – something that has substantially diminished as a result of globalisation, but needs to be reintroduced.

I think it justified within a discussion about the EU to include the converse of taxation in the form of nation state subsidies from the EU government. The most contentious of these is the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) a mechanism created to normalise competition in farming output whilst markets adjusted, but which has not yet gone away. Indeed the CAP still accounts for some 50% of the EU budget. The French appear to use the substantive revenues they receive under CAP to put off the fateful day of much needed social reform in France. It is easier for the French government to plead with the EU Commission to keep this subsidy than it is to break the stranglehold grip over social policy of the trade unions in France. This has been a thorn in the side of EU integration for too many years. A unified tax system throughout Europe, applied equally to all, could address this problem without any reasonable objections from any trade union movement.

If we refer back to our corporate structure described in ‘EU/Eurozone – Start Again of Plod On – A New Government’ it is easy to see that tax revenues yield the income streams that provides for the State to function. A nation state, just as with a corporate, has a Balance Sheet showing all State assets and Liabilities, an income statement showing all tax receipts and the costs government and the social state, and a cash flow statement showing tax receipts versus expenditure on a timeline indicating when the government coffers will be short of funds to meet its commitments (and thus the need to visit with the Central Bank to cover any shortfall), and when it will be in surplus. The theory is that good government will result in balanced books, something Margaret Thatcher was forever reminding her colleagues in the House of Parliament when they wanted yet more money for some social crusade, and something Tony Blair just ignored in favour of expensive social engineering intended to buy popularity and the votes of the people. Thus the infamous note left by Labour MP, Liam Bryne, former Chief Secretary to the Treasury at the time of the general election in 2010 which stated ‘Dear Chief Secretary, I’m afraid that there is no money. Kind Regards and Good Luck’ – a very different situation to the one Labour inherited when they came to power.

What about the rest of Europe? We know that Germany has probably the most austere tax regime, albeit that the Scandinavian countries make take exception to this statement. The most lax at tax collection is probably Greece where, by all accounts, tax officials are readily corrupted, and the ruling elite are part of the problem. As far back as ancient Greece Aristotle knew that no freedom is limitless. The negative aspect of too much freedom of economy was an issue already recognised by the ancient Greeks, and proves to be one of major reasons for the current huge crisis in Greece today. As in ancient Greece it is still typical that very rich people think that is very natural not to pay taxes, and not even to have a conscience about it.

Clearly entrepreneurs and wealth creation are at the heart of any free market economy and must be encouraged and rewarded. Furthermore it is arrogant of politicians in general to think that they can outsmart the clever greedy people. However a united political system in the form of a simple and unified tax structure applied throughout our United States of Europe could close many of the gates to ensure that excessive freedom is not available.

In our United States of Europe the whole tax system would have to be overhauled in the name of equality for all. Thus what might a centralised tax system look like so that it is seen to be balanced between rich and poor states?

Within a framework of subsidiarity the central government would need funds, and each member state would also need centrally allocated funds to operate State policies. Furthermore each member state could raise taxes specific to the requirements of each state, with the consent of the people of the member state. There are a multitude of cultures within Europe having different requirements in the name of well-being and quality of life. These should not be stifled by an overbearing central government, and thus allow the state assemblies to respond to such requirements through a democratic process of state taxation.

Thus we would need State taxation in the form of corporation tax, income tax, investment income tax, duties, levies, etc. The rate of taxation on these sources would need to be the same for everyone, and collection would be controlled by a central government revenue agency. For example all employed people would have income tax and national insurance (for healthcare and pensions) deducted monthly at source thus providing central government with a constant stream of income, easy to collect, and overcoming the existing difficulties presented to citizens in some nation states who are paid their salary gross of deductions and then have to find funds to pay their taxes at the end of the tax year. Income tax thresholds, i.e. the minimum salary to attract any income tax, should be set at a liveable level (thus optimising the tax collection body to a cost effective level), and national insurance contribution up to this level should only include a pension provision – healthcare should be free for the poorest.

VAT could be transformed into a tax to allow for redistribution of wealth to poorer sectors. For example VAT, being a capitalist tax and applied to purchase power (consumption), should have its bounds set such that the essentials of life should not attract VAT. This means that most food, anything to do with rearing children, books, newspapers, etc would be exempt from VAT. Indeed VAT could be seen as a luxury tax and thus only paid by people who had enough disposable funds to afford the items. This means that poorer people would pay little VAT as a percentage of their disposable income, and richer people would pay substantially more. These funds could be used to improve the environment of the poorer people, and help poorer member states to raise the standards of living for its citizen by providing necessary infrastructure to encourage wealth creation.

The essential requirement of the system of taxation within our United States of Europe is that it is seen as unified and fair to all people thus preventing unnecessary competition between member states, and to prevent artificial migration of people. For example, the extreme application of subsidiarity in Switzerland has provided a bizarre situation where people will move just a few streets in the same city for the sole purpose of achieving lower taxation in a different municipal system, but still work in, and enjoy the benefits of the higher tax municipality within that same city. This level of subsidiarity could be compared with tribalism and thus is very undesirable, and should be avoided.

Thank you for your continued interest in this European venture.

This blog is part of a series of blogs called ‘EU/Eurozone – Start Again or Plod On?’ and which examine the framework for a truly United States of Europe, and what would be needed to achieve it. Look at the archive index to find other blogs in this series.

I hope that you found this blog interesting, and will give it the Like It ‘thumbs up’ below, and/or become a follower so that you receive notice of further essays in this series.

You can also use the share options below to share your interest in this blog with others you know.

These blogs are intended to provoke thought and ideas so I look forward to any comments about the content. Just move to the beginning of the blog, click on ‘Comments’ and you can record your views, or ask questions.