Yesterday, British Prime Minister David Cameron presented his view on the new Fiscal Union Treaty (which he had earlier vetoed because it would be too damaging to the UK). This treaty, which includes everyone except the British and the Czechs, remaining 25 EU members agree to balance their budgets (and amend their constitutions to that end) or face penalties from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and/or be forced to rewrite their budgets under the supervision of the Eureaucracy. Additional, the Eureaucracy will administer their agreement; what that means depends on your source of information.

As it happens, when it comes to what goes on in Europe, I rely on three Brits above all: naturalized American Andrew Stuttaford, MEP Daniel Hannan, and MP John Redwood. Stuttaford hasn’t chimed in (yet), but Hannan and Redwood have. There’s only one problem: these very similar Euroskeptic Tories have vastly different interpretations of Cameron’s actions.

Hannan is bitterly dissapointed:

December’s ‘veto’ turns out to be nothing of the kind; at best, it is a partial opt-out. Britain had asked for concessions in return for allowing the other member states to use EU institutions and structures for their fiscal compact. No such concessions were forthcoming, but we have given our permission anyway. The only difference is that, because the deal was done in a separate treaty structure, the PM doesn’t have to put anything through the House of Commons. We had a generational opportunity to improve our relationship with the EU. That opportunity has passed.

Ouch! Terrible reversal by Cameron, unless one reads Redwood’s take:

Mr Cameron used the veto , refusing a UK signature on the proposed new Treaty before Christmas, and then renewed the same veto this week. He has made it crystal clear that the UK will not sign the proposed Treaty, will not surrender more powers, will not submit its budgets to Euro style controls. I for one am relieved Mr Cameron was doing the negotiating rather than the Labour leader. Labour in office gave away huge powers at Nice, Amsterdam and Lisbon.

Confused? I know I am. These two men usually have very similar opinions; this time they managed to have completely different facts.

So yours truly tried the Spectator (UK) to get some idea of who might be right . . . and Peter Hoskin split the answer down the middle:

If you wanted proof that Cameron has softened his stance towards Europe since the hard chill of December, then just look to the Lib Dems. Nick Clegg, unlike then, was sat next to the Prime Minister  as he gave his statement to the Commons this afternoon. And the questions that followed from the likes of Menzies Campbell and Simon Hughes were generally warm and approving.

. . .

Miliband (RWL note: leader of the Labor opposition) did suggest that Britain’s  interest would be better served by somehow, maybe, possibly, being more involved with the new treaty than we are. But it’s a much less clear position than Cameron’s own ‘We are not signing  it, we are not part of it, we are not ratifying it, it doesn’t place any obligations on Britain…’ even after the softening exercises of the past few days.

One other thing I noticed in Hoskin’s report was the muted reaction of other Euroskeptic MPs. It may be that the MPs, who are close to Cameron, know his steel on this subject and, for now, trust him. Hannan is not an MP, but as an MEP, he knows and fears the ability of the EU to maneuver around any assurances they make to member states. Those both Redwood and Hannan may be biased by what is nearest to them (understandably so).

In the end though, other points Redwood makes tip the balance:

Some of us will also be very surprised if this Treaty comes to pass in anything like its current form. It will presumably need the referendum approval of the Irish and maybe others. The front runner for French President says he wants to scrap the current version and wants fundamental revision. Other countries are keeping a low profile but may have ratification problems ahead if it comes to that. The Czechs have jumped ship since Christmas.

This one will run and run. It is good that the UK has consistently placed a veto on any of this applying to us. The UK now needs to play its hand well over any extension of ECJ power over other members.

The mention of the ECJ’s power hunger is exactly the sort of thing Hannan fears, and I share that fear. If this “Treaty of 25″ was set in stone, I’d be shocked at Redwood’s complacency.

As it is, though, Redwood’s point about the Treaty’s problems is more telling. Unless I miss my guess, France will have a new president soon, as Redwood suggests. Ireland has shot down EU treaties before, and that was when they still liked Europe and trusted their Europhilic politicians (neither of which holds today). A couple of other Parliaments may have a harder time passing this thing than their governments would like to admit (the Netherlands and Finland jump to mind).

This is not to say I like European deficit spending; it does say that I think budget decisions are for a nation’s electorate, not the unelected Eureaucracy. Should this treaty come into force, 25 nations will effective put their independence on the clock to extinction. Redwood and Hannan both want to avoid that happening to Britain, and rightly so.

Cross-posted to Virginia Virtucon

She starts with the usual, the “great firewall,” i.e., the cadres’ attempt to block anything problematic to the regime from even entering China. Impossible, you say? Not quite:

This blocking is easily accomplished because the global Internet connects to the Chinese Internet through only eight “gateways,” which are easily “filtered.” At each gateway, as well as among all the different Internet service providers within China, Internet routers — the devices that move the data back and forth between different computer networks — are all configured to block long lists of website addresses and politically sensitive keywords.

Ah yes, but one can get around the firewall with the right software, right? Well, yes. Here’s the problem: 99% of internet users in Communist-controlled China don’t have it, so while a large number of Chinese can see around the firewall, it’s “not enough percentage-wise to shape majority public opinion” as MacKinnon notes (to give an idea, over 5% of the entire population on the mainland is a member of the Chinese Communist Party).

MacKinnon then goes to show why the firewall is so important by recounting the story of Google: why it chose to create a Chinese-only version of itself to get in the firewall, what it had to do to stay, and why after four years it gave up and left again.

The result is, literally, two internets: a mainland-China-web and a rest-of-the-world-wide-web. The former version has its own Facebook (more than one, actually) and Twitter (use the real one and risk prison); it ensures that every resident of the mainland is connected to . . . each other and the CCP. The rest of us are locked outside, and only allowed in if we say the right things, at the right time, about the right people.

One of the hallmarks of “engagement” thinking was that the economic “reforms” the CCP unleased would, eventually lead to political freedom. For those of us on the right, the classic example of Augusto Pinochet – who dramatically lessened the state’s role in the economy, than responded repeatedly to pressures inside and out to shrink his own power base until he lost his own referendum on extending his leadership and stepped down – shined in our eyes. However, the CCP was not an anti-Communist general. Their reforms merely changed the Party from factory manager to holding company, and the cadre went from foreman to trust runner.

Many may argue with my interpretation of the economics, but on the political side, it goes without question that the regime has become more restrictive against dissenters,  more aggresive abroad, and more interested in dominating its neighbors, including the “breakaway province” (Taiwan).

These trends had their beginnings in the 1990s, but one of the standard “engagement” responses was that the internet would force the CCP to loosen up. To the contrary, the cadres have managed to create their own information cul-de-sac.

They really did succeed in nailing jello to the wall.

Cross-posted to the China e-Lobby and Bearing Drift

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

Oops.

For the unitiated, there have been so many instances of errors, data manipulation, and other shenanigans, from global warming alarmists that the rest of us can barely keep up with them; the number of my posts alone on this subject now stand at thirty-four.

Among other things, the piece shows that the anti-alarmists in the scientific community are finding their voices. Check out the comments from Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute:

It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help.

Ouch!

Could be a rough decade for Mann, Jones, et al.

Cross-posted to Virginia Virtucon

(For the unitiated, there have been so many instances of errors, data manipulation, and other shenanigans, from global warming alarmists that the rest of us can barely keep up with them; the number of my posts alone on this subject stood at thirty-three; now it’s thirty-four).

In this case, GISS made some “corrections” to the Reykjavik data. The Icelandic capital had particularly warm spell between 1940 and 1965 (roughly). Well, “GISS, as the blue line shows, have magically made this warm period disappear, by reducing the real temperatures by up to nearly 2 degrees” (Not A Lot of People Know That via WUWT).

Chart courtesy Paul Homewood (Not A Lot of People Know That – via WUWT)

Suffice to say, the locals are not happy (emphasis in original):

Meanwhile the Iceland Met Office say that “The GHCN “corrections” are grossly in error in the case of Reykjavik”.

Whoops.

Cross-posted to Virginia Virtucon

“I think you have to live in worlds of Swiss bank accounts and Cayman Island accounts and automatic $20-million-a-year income with no work to have some fantasy this far from reality,” Gingrich said, jabbing at some of the details of Romney’s self-released income taxes this week.

It’s just abundantly clear that Newt doesn’t get it.

Mitt Romney’s income is far from automatic. There is risk involved in every investment. Sure, risk can be mitigated or minimized in various ways, but it never goes away. Even the “risk-free” T-Bill was downgraded last year.

I mention this because a certain fellow blogger has focused on Newt’s economic policies as friendlier to the supply-side school of economics. From a policy perspective, this is true. However, statements like this make it clear that Gingrich has none of the underlying respect for investments and upper-income earners that are at the heart of supply-side economics. For Gingrich, the private sector exists to fuel his various government schemes; it has no value of its own.

In short, when it comes to economics, Gingrich may know the words, but not the music.

Cross-posted to Virginia Virtucon

P.S. and Non-Seq: Read the whole piece (here it is again); Gingrich’s “guest-worker permit” plan reads a lot like full-blown amnesty to me.

This morning, thanks to Daniel Pipes & Cynthia Farahat (National Review Online), we have a better idea just what those means were:

Six parliamentary candidates filed official complaints against a range of officials and demanded that the elections be annulled and redone, reports the newspaper El-Badil in its January 10 edition. One of the candidates, a Wafd Party candidate named Ibrahim Kamel, explained how he acquired government documents indicating that fewer than 40 million Egyptians were eligible to vote, while the current elections included 52 million voters, implying 12 million fraudulent ballots. This increase was achieved, he said, by taking the names and identification numbers of legitimate voters and duplicating them between two and 32 times in other electoral precincts.

To give an idea of what 12 million extra voters can do, keep in mind that neither Islamist party scored that many votes in total in the final party-list tally (Daily News Egypt). In fact - assuming all 12 million phantom voters went with the Muslim Brotherhood’s FJP or the Salafists’ Nour – a clean result would have meant the secular parties would have won about 60% of the vote, at least.

Meanwhile, the Salafists in particular expressed more concern for the safety of the military junta than for the honesty of the election process (Pipes and Farahat):

In contrast, the victorious Islamists, who despise democracy, made little effort to conceal their electoral success through fraud. Some of them went so far as proudly and unapologetically to assert that it’s their Islamic duty to be dishonest. Tal’at Zahran, a leading Salafi, called the democratic system “infidel,” “criminal,” and “out of the Elders of Zion.” He cynically observed that “it is our duty to forge elections; God will reward us for this.”

Revealingly, Zahran also praised Tantawi: “Just as we gave Mubarak the bay’a [the Islamic oath of loyalty], we now support SCAF. If Tantawi decides to stay in power, we will support him until the day he dies.”

Funny, I don’t remember Mubarak touting the Salafists’ oath to him as he presented himself to be the only obstacle to their seizing power. Plus ça change, plus ça mème chose.

Cross-posted to Bearing Drift

There have been many people asking you to explain your role at Bain Capital; so far, that explanation hasn’t been satisfactory, but perhaps not quite for the reasons you have heard.

Most of us in the Republican Party are prepared to defend free enterprise, even if that includes various dislocations required to sort out economic efficiencies and move people from jobs where they are less productive to jobs where they are more productive, and we’ll gladly wear the bus tracks from those arguments as badges of honor.

There is only one problem with that: you still get hit by a bus - and South Carolina just ran over you.

So, FWIW – and keep in mind, this comes from a friendly and supportive voice – here’s what yours truly would rather hear from you on this point.

• Bain Capital wasn’t in the business of destroying companies; it was in the business of rescuing them. Bain Capital was in business to help firms adjust to market changes and prosper, instead of capsizing to those changes and collapsing.
• Not every rescue succeeded, of course; no one is perfect; but many of them did, and because of that, Bain saved companies and jobs across the board; some even added jobs (that last part you have down cold)
• If Bain’s record was so awful, or cruel, why would the Olympics ask me to rescue them – a rescue that spectacularly succeeded? Somebody thought Bain knew what it was doing.

In short, you need to stop acting like Gordon Gecko – because you weren’t him. What’s more, you know you weren’t him.

The tax issue is even simpler: my 2011 returns will be filed and released in April. I’d rather just release them all then. Thank you.

I happened to see your South Carolina speech tonight. It was very well done, and an excellent start to your recovery; but it needs more. It needs the above, at least that’s how I see it.

Cross-posted to Bearing Drift

To understand why Romney and Paul are closer to rapprochement than they appear, we have to look at the four key pieces of the puzzle: foreign affairs, economic issues, social issues, and personalities.

Foreign affairs: Contrary to popular belief, Romney and Paul are not that far apart. The American military deployment in Iraq has already ended, and the withdrawal fom Afghanistan was predestined not by Paul, Romney, or Obama, but Hamid Karzai, who wants our troops out yesterday (this is also why I have refused to hit Obama too hard for this). Oddly enough, Romney can probably score points with Paul by asking for a faster withdrawal than the President has planned. Paul and Romney’s biggest differences are Iran and Communist China, but if Romney stresses aiding dissidents (as in the Reagan Doctrine) plus a quicker Afghanistan withdrawal, it could do the trick.

Social issues: Romney and Paul are probably closer to each other on these than to anyone else running. Romney would probably prefer that most (if not all) social issues disappear, and Paul doesn’t think the federal government should have a role in them anyway. The only matter in which either would dramatically alter the status quo would be regarding judicial appointments, a matter I’ve already addressed here. In short, this is the area of least disagreement.

Economic Issues: This is something else entirely, of course, but more importantly, it is where Paul has the most leverage. On economic policy, Paul speaks for much more of the party than Romney does and he knows it. Odds are Paul will focus more on monetary issues; that said, if the Fed decides to pull a QE3, Paul may be one of the milder critics of the Fed descending upon Romney.

Personalities: Thinking of the above paragraph, I’m reminded of the line from Hoffa: “A grievance can be resolved; differences can be resolved. But an imaginary hurt? A slight? That motherf**ker’s gonna hate you ’til the day you die.” For three of the four opponents to Mitt Romney, this race has gotten personal. Ron Paul is not one of those three. In fact, on the issue that has affected Romney personally the most (Bain Capital), Paul has defended Romney, not attacked him.

Moreover, unless I miss my guess, Dr. Paul and his supporters have focused much of their ammunition towards Romney’s other opponents, not Romney himself. It is almost as if Paul has presumed Romney will be the nominee, and is looking for the best deal with him that he can get. This should neither upset nor demoralize his supporters; Paul is playing a long game. As the Libertarian nominee for President in 1988, he has seen how weak a cause outside the two parties can be; so he’s looking to build the cause within the Republican Party, then perhaps hand it over to his son, Senator Rand Paul.

If I’m right about this, then Ron Paul will be far more helpful to Mitt Romney than anyone realizes. We shall see.

We also believe that the agreement is predicated on only a partial recognition of the source of the crisis: that the current financial turmoil stems primarily from fiscal profligacy at the periphery of the eurozone. In our view, however, the financial problems facing the eurozone are as much a consequence of rising external imbalances and divergences in competitiveness between the EMU’s core and the so-called “periphery”. As such, we believe that a reform process based on a pillar of fiscal austerity alone risks becoming self-defeating, as domestic demand falls in line with consumers’ rising concerns about job security and disposable incomes, eroding national tax revenues.

Accordingly, in line with our published sovereign criteria, we have adjusted downward our political scores (one of the five key factors in our criteria) for those eurozone sovereigns we had previously scored in our two highest categories. This reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of European policymaking and political institutions have not been as strong as we believe are called for by the severity of a broadening and deepening financial crisis in the eurozone.

In other words, the EUreaucracy doesn’t have a clue.

S&P also made note of the fact that a long term solution isn’t exactly popular with anybody:

Governments are also aiming to put greater focus on growth-enhancing structural measures. While these may contribute positively to a lasting solution of the current crisis, we believe they could also run counter to powerful national interest groups, whose resistance could potentially jeopardize the reform momentum and impede the recovery of market confidence.

Really? Who would have guessed?

S&P also takes aim at the European Central Bank’s notion of hosing member banks with funds in the hopes they buy peripheral debt (good luck with that); the growing realization among private sector bondholders that “haircuts” will look more like scalpings (and that several may be coming); and that all around, no one has any confidence that this will end well, period.

At present, four “core” nations still have AAA ratings, including the great Planet Londinium of them all, Germany (yes, I have come to the conclusion that Firefly unwittingly predicted the future of the EU), but the downgrade of Sihnon France puts the entire continental-based bailout scheme into question. But don’t take my word for it (same link, emphasis added by ZeroHedge):

Following our placement of the ratings on the eurozone sovereigns on CreditWatch in December, we also placed a number of supranational entities on CreditWatch with negative implications. These included, among others, the European Financial Stability Fund (EFSF), the European Investment Bank (EIB), and the European Union’s own funding program. We are currently assessing the credit implications of today’s eurozone sovereign downgrades on those institutions and will publish our updated credit view in the coming days.

Uh oh.

Of course, the EUreaucracy’s response is to take aim at the messenger one more time, and throw in a bunch of straw men for good measure (Daniel Hannan):

In Die Welt, the EPP’s Elmar Brok claims that the US has launched an economic war against Europe. For those who can’t read German, here is a rough summary of his argument. The US ratings agencies, he says, had no conceivable reason to downgrade nine eurozone states last week. What this is really about is a political project aimed at advancing ‘Anglo-Saxon interests’ in Europe. Americans have been becoming increasingly anti-European, as Mitt Romney’s campaign shows. (I have no idea either, but that’s what he says.) Then again, it’s not really their fault, since they’ve been fed lies by Anglo-Saxon media moguls for decades.

It’s tempting to dismiss Elmar as a buffoon, but he is a senior MEP who, among other things, chairs the EU-US interparliamentary group. More to the point, his views are widely shared. The President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, regularly lashes out at the American agencies, and plans to create an EU one instead (as if anyone would believe a word it wrote). Earlier today, the European Commission threatened the agencies with greater regulation including censorship, prompting my colleague Ashley Fox to remark, ‘You don’t get better weather by turning down the forecast’.

That’s right. It’s the ratings agencies and the Americans. Best to muzzle them before the truth gets out.

All of this, mind you, is a desperate attempt to escape the reality that a multinational currency is simply unstable (especially when no one is expected to follow the rules during the boom years).

Cross-posted to Virginia Virtucon

Cross-posted to the China e-Lobby