Posts by Archivist

A non-human user account who owns all migrated content written by users who did not sign up to keep their by-lines when invited to do so in 2017.

KCL Libertarians’ Statement on ‘Endangered Speeches’ Event

We write to you at a paramount time where attempted censorship on campus is no longer looming in the shadows but is vividly on display in one of the most prestigious universities in the world.

This afternoon’s event entitled ‘Endangered Speeches’ is due to be hosted by the King’s College London War Studies Department, featuring a conversation between Dr. Joanna Williams, as its guest speaker, and Professor Michael Rainsborough who heads the War Studies Department. The conversation is advertised to assess the contentions surrounding the debate over free speech at university campuses. Ultimately, as outlined, the debate aims to ‘explore the dimensions of the debate’ and allow students to cultivate their own understanding and widen their perspective.

We are extremely concerned, but also unsurprised in light of recent events, that elements within the university have attempted to curtail Dr Williams’ free speech on campus and sought to pressurise the university to rescind its invitation and publicly apologise over dubious grounds. It seems that these individuals and societies would rather not have a debate at all, instead citing platitudes that they have the moral high ground, thus those who disagree with them should not be permitted to speak on campus. Disagreeing with Dr Joanna Williams is something we couldn’t encourage more, but rather than coming to the event and challenging her ideas within the Q&A, those seeking to cancel the event would rather the guest speaker not be heard at all.

In an absurd statement issued by the KCL Intersectional Feminist Society, but also backed up by 144 other students in a variety of departments across the university, the case was furthered that due to Dr Joanna Williams’ supposed opposition to women (despite, of course, being a woman herself), trans and non-binary people, students on campus will be put in danger of ‘harm’. As one line states explicitly, ‘not supporting women, trans, and non-binary people kills, and Williams knowingly endorses this.’ Without knowledge of who Dr Joanna Williams is, one could only assume after reading the statement that she believes in men ruling over women and the encouragement of the suicide of trans people. Not only is this deception, it is a vivid exemplification of a smear campaign to shut down discussion, force feed students only one given narrative and prevent them from hearing a different point of view. Make no mistake, this is no different from the procedure followed in academic institutions within the authoritarian regimes of the 20th century when an opinion that differed from the regime propaganda was espoused. In this way, those attempting to cancel this event are more in harmony with the ‘fascists’ they are supposedly trying to battle against than the supposed liberators they claim to be.

More importantly, we were extremely disappointed to learn that the Student Union, a body elected by students to represent students’ interests, came to the defence of those hell-bent on de-platforming Dr Joanna Williams. In a statement, the KCLSU expressed ‘solidarity’ with those restricting the free exchange of ideas on campus and expressed concern and disappointment at her potential presence. In truly ironic fashion, they claimed that this event ‘only serves as a platform for a harmful speaker, as opposed to truly addressing the issue of free speech on campus.’ If a Student Union doesn’t have the intellectual fortitude to fathom that harmful speech counts as free speech, we must be prepared for very dark times ahead. What kind of precedent does that set? When anything that is subjectively perceived to offend any single person becomes the litmus test for an idea to be shut down, what speech will be left to be heard? It is clear to see that the Student Union’s backing of this anti-free speech crusade will only limit the band of accepted speech, and that is severely dangerous. (To read the statement, follow this link:

In the interests of the future of students and our educational instructions that we all hold so dear, we call on the Student Union to retract its statement which aims to restrict students’ exposure to more ideas on campus. If this demand is not met, we will be forced to take further action within our rights as students by holding our representatives to account.

Whether you agree with Dr Joanna Williams or not, and we certainly do not endorse everything she stands for, free speech will soon dry up at the source if we do not stand up for the right of those who disagree with us to convey their ideas.

Join the battle to preserve free speech with our nationwide Free to Speak campaign (FaceBook, Twitter) and protect the free flow of ideas, no matter which side of the political spectrum they originate from, on university campuses. Free speech is already being curtailed on campuses, and it’s time we woke up before they come for your speech.


Danny Al-Khafaji – President of the KCL Libertarian Society and Director of Free to Speak

Georgia Leigha – Vice President of KCL Libertarian Society

Tamara Berens – Communications Director of KCL Libertarian Society

Danielle Kleinerman – Events Organiser of KCL Libertarian Society

Eberle Miller – Treasurer of KCL Libertarian Society

How to usher in a new golden age of science without spending a penny

Many years ago, the wise king Jafar of Serendip spared no expense in the education of his three sons. He called in the best tutors and scientists from around the world to prepare his sons to be rulers, but soon realized that books and teachers would not be enough. The sons would have to depart the kingdom on a journey of discovery in foreign lands to find knowledge and wisdom not contained in any book.

So begins the Persian fairy tale The Three Princes of Serendip, which through Horace Walpole gave rise to the term serendipity –  accidental but fortunate discoveries in science unrelated to the goal of the study. Although the meaning of the term in later years has shifted somewhat into implying a large degree of luck (perhaps a sign of envy from competitors), the process of incidental discovery is no mystery. In fact, it is inevitable that hard work and a deeper understanding of a complex system, along with new data and observations, opens new avenues and insights. There is no doubt that luck can be a major factor, as in the case of Alexander Fleming waking up one morning to find his agar plates contaminated by a mould which eradicated any nearby bacteria. That mould was later identified as penicillin, which brought on a revolution in medicine and finally swung the long battle between humans and bacteria into our favour. Similarly, Henri Becquerel discovered radioactivity by leaving a photographic plate overnight in a box. In both cases, their hard work and diligence allowed them to capitalise fully on lucky circumstances which would have passed many of us by.

Sometimes, serendipitous discoveries result in billion dollar industries, as in the case of a marker protein used in almost every microbiological experiment since the 70s, which was a consequence of a modestly funded study of luminescent jellyfish. Once the principles of the molecule were understood, industry quickly enhanced the product with an efficiency only a market economy can provide.

There are also some commercial enterprises whose primary products are serendipitous. One very interesting example of this is the Fraunhofer Institute, as you may recognise as the inventors of the mp3 audio format. Their main source of income is to perform research on a bespoke level for external clients, and as a consequence, they have amassed a considerable range of patents in virtually every field they operate in.

Previously, I have argued that public funding of science is a waste, and that the human and financial resources would be better allocated elsewhere (i.e. not allocated at all), so wouldn’t that imply that scientific advances would be halted when funding dries out? Perhaps not at all, as long as the resources of other actors were freed up and invested into research. One way to achieve this is by removing costly and inefficient regulations on industry. The best example of the massive overheads of regulation is the cost of developing a new drug. On average, US pharma companies must be prepared to gamble $2 billion for each new drug development. As bad as that sounds, it is actually worse since the drug may still not be approved or commercially viable. Most of this cost is due to draconian FDA regulations, which in the true spirit of statism are intended to protect the populace, but whose effects are instead to deny them risky but potentially efficient drugs.

Let’s say that regulatory costs were cut, freeing up a billion dollars per drug. What would pharma do with these extra funds? Most likely, they will invest it back into research and development. Some of these funds would even open up a sector of businesses who specialize in a specific field but who operate similarly to the Fraunhofer Institute. If for instance a drug company needed genetic screening based on fruit flies, it would be more profitable for them to outsource the study to a business specializing in it than to set up an in-house facility. The diligent fruit fly business would perform the study, deliver the results, and also potentially develop products of their own based on serendipitous discoveries, elevating them to proper pharma companies in their own right. And it doesn’t end there – perhaps the fruit fly business needs support from another business focusing on yeast, and perhaps that work leads to further discoveries and so on ad infinitum.

The economic gains of opening up the market for bespoke research companies similar to the Fraunhofer is a strong enough argument in itself, but there are also other benefits that are harder to quantify. First, scientific support companies have to produce real and replicable results in order to maintain their good reputation and gain more clients. As I have argued previously, academia does not. Second, the incentive to pursue a scientific career would be based on market forces rather than political decisions. Fewer scientists would be trapped in dead end careers and held back by the altruism prevalent in academia. Third, it would derail predatory academic journals, fraudulent results and politicised science, shifting the currency of research from publications, grants and ideology to actual concrete results.

The three princes of Serendip walk among us every day. They represent the inquisitive and creative nature of humans, but they are stifled by regulations, politics and the altruism of academia. Let them roam fully free and unfettered, and we will usher in a new golden age of science unlike anything in history.



Sean Hooper speaks tonight 13 November at the Two Chairmen.

End public funding of science

There are probably few careers which have been so romanticised by the entertainment industry as that of scientists. Wild haired avuncular lunatics in white coats work ceaselessly to prevent the destruction of the earth by asteroids, virii or the occasional zombie outbreak, or tirelessly spend long hours in spotless labs finding cures for every disease imaginable. They all have one thing in common; an altruistic and self-sacrificing drive for solving problems for the collective good. Their results are their own rewards.

Many postgraduate students experience a similar feeling of moral purpose. After all, it is a field where hard work returns results, and there is satisfaction in understanding how the world around us works in every minute detail. An advancement in a field, if strictly verified and repeated by the shared language of the scientific method, is a permanent achievement even if not entirely correct.

Now, if you were in Darwin’s shoes, backed by an ample family fortune and a very patient wife, you would be free to pursue your passion for science over the course of decades before finally publishing the Origin of Species. The immediate economic benefits of his work can be argued, but at the time there were few applications which would result in tangible financial gain compared to the work of Edison and Tesla, whose work was driven directly by investors who expected real products in return for their support. For Darwin, the fruits of his labour was more on a personal satisfaction level rather than financial gain.

The main problem with academia today is the primary goal of scientific investigation is something different from the Teslas and Darwins of previous years. The central theme of modern science is funding. Without it, nothing can or will be done. A researcher will receive funding by convincing a board of more senior scientists that her work is important. The primary way to prove your value is through your publications. Essentially, a project is started with a publication in mind. Often, this is already drafted out before experiments even begin, and as results come in, conclusions are updated and a target journal is decided. The choice of journal is also critical; a publication in a journal which is by consensus deemed to be high level, for instance Nature or Science, is considered to have higher impact than articles in other journals. You would maybe need several articles in lower impact journals to equal one article in Nature. When a journal is agreed on, then the authors must carefully select reviewers from their peers. The combined impact of all your publications will then strongly influence your ability to draw in funding from the granting authority.

Academic institutes will be more inclined to host scientists who receive ample funding, thereby improving their standing and also getting a substantial cut of the grant money. Successful researchers will be able to hire more PhD students to labor nights and weekends in order to produce more publications, and the carousel spins on. The science Ponzi scheme rolls on until all funds are spent.

It should come as no great surprise that this system of artificial success and consensus policy creates plenty of opportunities for abuse. Since the most important goal of a publication is to be published, there is a temptation for researchers to exaggerate their findings and downplay drawbacks of their methodology. After all, if their professional career relies on their work being recognised, who can blame them? Even worse, data is sometimes found to be false and unrepeatable, figures manipulated and conclusions misleading. In 2016, over 650 published articles were retracted either due to sloppiness or fraud. It is, for obvious reasons, difficult to estimate the degree of fraud in publications, and even more difficult to distinguish human error from a conscious attempt to mislead. However, a recent study of roughly 20,000 papers revealed that 3.8% of them contain images that were either duplicated or manipulated. Since these cases only comprise a small subset of the information contained in a publication, it is fairly safe to assume that the actual degree of error is much higher.

Another way to improve the chances of publication is to choose reviewers carefully based on their attitude towards you and your work. Benevolent reviewers can fast-track you to a successful publication, while reviewers who compete with you are given the power to delay, derail or even in some cases steal your work. The potential for political cabals of researchers reviewing each other is immense. Again, the currency of publications corrupts the end goal, which is to judge science solely by its end result, and not who the researcher happens to socialise at conferences with.

Alternatively, if you are not lucky enough to be involved in a network of allies, you can always create your own. In 2015, 64 papers were retracted when it was discovered that one researcher had created fake reviewers, along with emails, and in effect reviewed their own papers. At least no one can claim that intense pressure to publish stifles creativity. The discovery of similar schemes resulted  in 250 retractions in 2015, and has been been described as a trend.

These are just a few examples of how the academic system is fundamentally broken. There are without a doubt still scientists who, as Tesla did, work diligently towards advancements that would result in concrete rewards in a market economy, and there are assuredly still the Darwins who dedicate their life to their passion to understand nature and the universe. It is unlikely however that either would thrive in the academic environment of today. Darwin would not see much funding, based on his rather terse publication record, and Tesla would not have the political skill to survive in the modern cutthroat publication industry that public science has become.

Let’s do ourselves a favour and end this charade. It is a waste of both financial and human resources. It has even claimed lives, and shortened many others, all under the grand deception of ‘altruism’. In the next article, I will explain what we must do to once again shape a new golden era of science from the ashes of corruption and fraud.

Note. See Retraction Watch for continuous updates of academic fraud.

Sean Hooper

‘Kingsman’: a Brexit explainer?

So much has been written about the rise of ‘Populism’. Many commentators have speculated on its origins while others struggled to work out what it all means and why it has come out. Examples of this populist wave include Trump, the Italian Five Star Movement and the British vote to leave the European Union.

You might not think that Matthew Vaughn’s Kingsman:The Secret Service, a gratuitous adventure in violence and comedy, could shed any light on populism. But think again.

Kingsman tells the story of ‘Eggsy’, played by Taron Egerton, a working class lad recruited into an international secret service called Kingsman. Independently funded, these super sleuths represent old-fashioned values of chivalry and are the epitome of the English gentleman. Before you rush off to a safe space, women can become Kingsman too. If you haven’t seen the film and are trying to work out what his type of agent would look like, then imagine Jacob Rees-Mogg with a martini.

The villains of the piece is Valentine played brilliantly, as always, by Samuel L Jackson. Valentine is a tech billionaire worried about global warming. He was donating large sums to research to deal with the problem but frustrated by a lack of results and politicians inability to act, he hits on another plan. Valentine reasons that the things that people do are over-heating the planet. If they can’t be persuaded to change heir behaviour then the only answer is to eliminate the problem, as someone recently said on TV, literally.

Valentine’s conspiracy to wipe out billions of lives to save the planet requires the help of the rich, politicians and Royalty. Not all agree, notably a Swedish Princess who, like others who resist, is kidnapped.

Valentine claims he cherishes humanity. To save it from itself, from its overpopulated ways, it needs to be culled while saving the elites who will create a new world. Meanwhile ordinary people get on with their lives, oblivious to the fact that others are making life and death decisions about them.

The forces stopping this are the gentleman, and gentlewoman, dedicated to being on the side of the people. It is no coincidence that the film also has Royalty objecting to this Malthusian plan.

The villains here are the people who think they know best, who are self-serving and selfish while claiming to be selfless.

Kingsman is an outlandish film. It is a homage to, and resetting of, the Bond genre. But it also reflects the spirit of the age: decisions that affect how people live are made by distant elites. Inevitably people kickback. They want to control their lives and are opting for politicians who are challenging the political consensus. That might not be the best option, as many of these politicians peddle Nativist theories and will undoubtedly be as addicted to power as their predecessors. But there is another alternative: freedom.



Alex Chatham

Alex has been an occasional blogger for Liberal Vision.

Shoot the B*tch?

Consider a lady called Phoebe.

Notwithstanding a few flaws and foibles, Phoebe is basically a decent person. She leads a contented and well-adjusted life, working hard, but equally enjoying the fruits of her labour. Happily, the work she does benefits others: we know this because they keep paying her to do it. That work, moreover, involves nothing immoral. Thus, Phoebe makes an honest living. And it’s a good living. Each year, she earns a handsome income, testifying to how much she has benefited others.

Every year, too, an institution called government—democratically elected by a majority of voting citizens—commands her to contribute to its coffers some portion of her honestly earned income, specifically, whatever it unilaterally determines to be the appropriate price for the services it renders onto Phoebe and her fellow citizens. This portion typically amounts to about 30% of Phoebe’s income. Every year to date, Phoebe has dutifully complied with this command.

This year, however, Phoebe has chosen to defy the command.

Phoebe has her reasons. Many of them eminently defensible. Some are even widely endorsed. For example, she holds that the government misspends much or most of the money that it manages, carelessly casting it hither and thither, using it principally to bribe the electorate, and only secondarily to aid the deserving. She also holds that the government, through its reckless policies of progressive monetary debasement and sovereign debt accumulation, may well be setting the stage for an eventual and catastrophic economic collapse. She furthermore holds that people in government generally consist of a motley crew of box-ticking bureaucrats, insufferable narcissists, and power-hungry opportunists—none of whom deserve her fiscal tribute.

So this year, Phoebe has alternative plans for the 30% of her income that she has heretofore relinquished. Some of these plans are selfish—like going on holiday to the destination of her dreams. Others are selfless—like paying for a poor friend to have a much needed operation. At all events, she has made up her mind: she is not, under any circumstances, going to comply with government’s command that she give up 30% of her earnings.

At some deep level, she regards her earnings as entirely hers—not anybody else’s—which means nothing more or nothing less than that she, and not anyone else, gets to decide what should done with those earnings. What else could the “her” in “her earnings” mean? Has she really been earning other people’s money, and not her own, for 30% of the time she has been working, every year? Try as she might, Phoebe just cannot get her head around this strange idea, any more than she can get her head around the strange idea (which she read on a bizarre blog one day) that her 30% of her sexual life might belong to someone else, rather than entirely to herself.

Phoebe duly informs the relevant governmental authorities, by formal letter, that she is refusing to pay the taxes they demand of her. As a courtesy, she gives her main reasons, and outlines her alternative financial plans.

Some weeks later, Phoebe receives a formal reply in writing. In that reply, she is warned of the severe consequences that would attend going ahead with her proposed illegal course of action. Unless she pays the amount specified, and by the date specified, she will have to pay yet more. Moreover, if she still refuses to pay the principal and the penalties, a band of men in suits will come, with an authorising document, and attempt to confiscate some of her property. Furthermore, if she gets in the way of these men taking her valuable property, another band of men will come—this time with uniforms, badges, and guns—and attempt to subdue her by force. In the event of her continuing to resist physically—say by parrying the aggressive force used to subdue her with a matching defensive force of her own—the level of force used to subdue her may be progressively escalated, such that the risk of her being injured or killed comes to markedly exceed zero. One way or another, sufficient force will be applied such that she will be rendered harmless. If she is still alive, she will then be conveyed to a cage for a lengthy spell. Many of her neighbours in nearby cages will be sociopaths, some of whom will have been convicted of stealing from and/or physically assaulting other innocent human beings—sometimes as part of an organised gang of thugs engaging in extortion.

Phoebe ignores the formal reply.

One month later, a band of men in suits duly come by her house, and demand entry. Phoebe doesn’t let them in: she keeps the front door shut and locked. Their verbal demands going unheeded, the men in suits instruct one of their burly assistants to break down the front door with a battering ram. But Phoebe anticipates them by opening the door and brandishing a large club a menacing manner. (Not for nothing is she nicknamed “Feisty Phoebe”!) Unaccustomed to dealing with such self-possessed and indomitable ladies, the men in suits scarper, shouting back indignantly that they will report this outrage to the police, and that there will be a heavy price to pay.

Early the next morning, as promised, another band of men appear outside Phoebe’s house. Their metallic badges glint ominously in the crepuscular light. They have come for her and her property. Phoebe, however, does not intend to let them take either. For her, it’s just the principle of the thing. This time round, the men readily breach her front door, and flood ferociously into her house. They have guns in their hands—portable machines designed to propel bits of metal at great speed into human flesh. They point their guns at her, and tell her she has to come with them—or else. Phoebe knows going with them means going to the cage, and leaving her property behind for the taking. But there are too many men, carrying too powerful weapons, to repel. So she tries to flee. At the backdoor of the house, however,she encounters a large man already waiting for her, blocking her exit. The man lunges at her, toppling her over, and pinning her to the floor. Another man arrives, and attempts to put handcuffs on Phoebe, so as to render her defenceless. But Phoebe still has a free hand. She reaches for a knife in her pocket, and strives desperately to stab the man on top of her, to get him off her. She succeeds: he screams, bleeds, lets her go. The other man, seeing his colleague stabbed, takes no chances: he draws his gun and fires at Phoebe. The bullet strikes her head, enters her brain, and kills her.

Question: In this scenario, whose side are you on?

Did Phoebe, by shirking her obligations to a preposterously unreasonable degree, have it coming? Did she, by her perverse intransigence, culpably predetermine her own demise? Are people like Phoebe—who do not give when the government says that they must, preferring to satisfy private desires rather than public ones—so unforgivably selfish, or so socially pernicious, that they must, if push comes to shove, be liquidated?

Alternatively, do you suspect that there might be something amiss with Phoebe’s largely sealed fate at the hands of the state, should she have the audacity to act as if her earnings were entirely her own? Would you be personally prepared, as a human being, to hurt Phoebe, and if necessary to kill her, if she adamantly refused to materially support some society-wide endeavour to the degree that some of her fellow citizens said she should? Or would you only be prepared to countenance such violence if an organisation called democratic government—which supposedly gains its legitimacy from the Divine Right of the Masses—does your dirty work for you? In other words, are you guilty of a form of indirect and cowardly psychopathy towards your fellow human beings, unless they do the bidding of the sovereign power you happen to identify with? Are you essentially prepared to condemn your fellow human beings to extortion, incarceration, or even execution by proxy, just because you lack either the imagination or courage to conceive of an alternative to the status quo? Are you as morally blinkered today as supporters of slavery were in their time—blithely but falsely taking yourself to be a decent human being—when you are in fact fatally morally compromised?

Is Phoebe completely right and you completely wrong?

Nah. Just shoot the b*tch.

How we can Make 2018 a Libertarian Year

In 2016, the Overton window of British politics became unjammed. The window is now free to move. How can libertarians best capitalise on the new opportunities presented? Where are we now, who and what are we, and what are these opportunities? What are the threats?

I don’t presume to say who is and is not a libertarian, if that is even a useful question. It is easy to get diverted by attempts to draw a precise boundary around a definition rather than identifying what clearly lies within the boundary. You could say we are people who believe in the Non-Aggression Principle or those holding a general presumption in favour of individual freedom. Perhaps we are followers of Hayek, Rand or whoever. In contrast with socialism and communism, libertarianism is not dogmatic: there’s no defined set of policies such as ‘total nationalisation’ or ‘abolish private property’. Instead, it is more like conservatism: a set of habits of mind and attitudes about policy, rather than a set of policies themselves.

It is therefore perfectly possible for libertarians passionately and sincerely to disagree about important policy matters (e.g., Brexit, anti-trust) as well as more fundamental philosophical questions (e.g., natural rights, which were controversial even as early as Benjamin Tucker and Max Stirner). In the long term, there are threats to one of the primary units of analysis in libertarian thought: the autonomous, law-abiding individual.

There is no reason to suppose, a priori, that the rule of law will continue to exist. The first steps towards privatising quasi-legislative power in favour of machines were made in the 1990s in relation to copyright enforcement technologies. If you can implement a restriction on someone’s behaviour via software, anticircumvention laws will protect the behaviour of your software against their hacking. Even if your software’s behaviour violates their most fundamental rights such as freedom of speech. It is not hard to imagine an unregulatable world of software, robots, and drones which enforce the will of their owners, or their hackers, in a broad range of public and private areas of life. The prospects that the owners will all have libertarian views are slim.

Deeper than the attack on law, our concept of what is a human individual and our confidence that we have free will are both coming under more sustained scrutiny due to advances in medical science and philosophy. Advancing the notion that we lack free will in some important sense is the project of John Brockman, an influential literary agent who has drawn to himself many famous scientist authors, or authors whom he has made famous, and many authors of whom libertarians would tend to approve.

The best example of libertarian democratic success today is Senator David Leyonhjelm, recently re-elected a libertarian to the Australian federal parliament, where he has shared the balance of power in the upper house with various other minor parties. This necessarily entails compromise: he has the ability in limited cases to trade off his support for one measure against another. There is no room in such calculations for purism; all that is available is some of what libertarians want, or none of it. Not all of it.

It is my belief that it is worthwhile focusing both on theoretical goals and practical goals. We should know where we’d like to go, and the direction in which we should take our next step towards that destination. How we got where we are should matter less to us than that we are on the same journey.

Is the EU broke without our money ?

The following little nugget about the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) mentioned by no other than Jacob Rees-Mogg in his podcast  –,  but here is the comment that intrigued me:

“For the 21 months remaining of the multiannual financial framework, the EU is bust. It has no legal ability to borrow, and neither do the Germans want to pay more or the Poles wish to receive less.”

This somewhat throw away comment, but it got me thinking.

If the Brexit negotiations are completed by March 2019 for the remaining time after that EU will be broke without our money – and don’t forget we were a fairly large contributor the last time this happened.

When crunch time comes will the EU really have to consider how they want to treat the UK as we leave the EU. The Commission will want the UK’s money – but let’s be honest most governments like more money. The EU still wants our money but we should not want to hand it over too quickly.

In 12 months time, the EU negotiators will be in a bind. Negotiating with the UK, that wants frictionless access to the single market, not to mention pressures from the City to retain passporting for its financial services.

However, the EU is hamstrung by other EU nations stating that they will not contribute more to the EU budget and most importantly Ireland not wanting a border on the mainland. The UK may have time on their side to bring the EU to a budgetary brink and avoid overpaying on the divorce bill.

With a backdrop President Trump talking about tariffs. How does it look to the rest of the world the EU has pushed tariffs on goods coming in from Britain. They would lose some of their credibility when they complain of others doing it to them. As I said in my last post, if free trade is advantageous, then it is not only advantageous within the EU it is advantageous to trade with the world.

Could we see a shut down of the EU? Similar to what happens in Washington when budgets cannot be passed. We have not seen it happen in the history of the EU yet. This situation would reflect badly on the EU. Something that they would want to avoid…..tick-tock.

The EU could bridge the gap by cutting costs, this will not be popular with the EU commission or bureaucrats as it lessens both their power and prestige. Although the Germans along with more fiscally prudent partners will prefer this option. Those on the receiving end of the budget will no doubt prefer to have richer countries contribute more ensuring that they get the same payments to which they have become accustomed. The electorate across Europe have been overwhelmingly been voting for eurosceptic parties.  It’s going to be difficult to convince such countries to send more money to the EU, especially when bashing the EU has been profitable to parties such as AfD (Alternative for Germany),  Lega Nord (Northern League – Italy), FPO (Freedom Party of Austria). Whoever is in power in these countries will be well aware of this broad (beyond left and right) feeling of resentment towards the EU.

Another option that could raise revenues is by levelling fines on companies that trade within the EU. In case you think this is a far-fetched idea,  just have look at the following graph which shows how large the recent Google fine is compared to other countries contributions to the EU.

This is not good fiscal policy in the long run for the EU. But for the UK if we are nimble enough, this is an opportunity for us being outside of the EU jurisdiction, companies could base themselves here in the UK knowing that they are next to a very large European market. Another option for European companies would be to base themselves in the UK knowing that they would be free of some of the impositions of the EU and outside of it customs area too. The UK could well be used as a base for European companies to trade outside of the EU with greater ease. We could position ourselves as the Singapore of Europe if there was the political will to do so.

With the mantra of the negotiations being “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed”, UK negotiators to play the long game of chicken to the very end. Withholding money to the last moment will allow it to be in the strongest bargaining position.

First posted on