The European Union Proves Once Again it is Not a Democratic Institution

by Owen Martin

As European citizens who care deeply about the democratic values of the EU, we can only feel a sense of shame that the EU has gone into an international forum with a position that threatened to undermine democracy and accountability in a range of countries extending throughout the wider Europe and Central Asia. And the primary reason for this is the European Commission’s stubborn resistance to having its decisions on environmental matters challengeable before the EU courts in the way that the decisions of national authorities may be challenged at national level [Jeremy Wates, EEB Secretary General].

The EU constantly portrays itself as a beacon of democracy and law in the modern world. But it often does not live up to this ideal. This week, at the meeting of the parties to the Aarhus Convention, an International Treaty which grants the public certain rights in environmental decision making such as access to information, participation and access to justice, the EU failed to accept a ruling made against it in relation to access to justice for citizens. 

The "Remainer" crowd in the UK and the Guardian tell us that it is not the European Union which is the problem but individual Member States :

If the EU does have a democratic deficit, that is because it is made up of countries with their own problems with public engagement in politics. Plus governments have a habit of blaming “Brussels” when things go wrong, which feeds the idea of an unelected, untamed bureaucracy. As one senior EU official puts it: “Anything you like you claim for yourselves and anything you don’t like you blame on Brussels [The Guardian].”

 However, here we have a situation where NGOs from various Member and Non Member States are trying (unsuccessfully) to hold the EU bureaucratic behemoth to account. Indeed, Norway and Switzerland (both outside the EU) were both forceful in their condemnation of EU's refusal to accept the ruling made against them :

Today during the plenary not a single Party or stakeholder supported the EU position. On the contrary, every delegation that spoke on the issue made very explicit that these amendments were not acceptable to them as they would undermine the Convention in the long term without any legal grounds justifying such amendments. 

Any EU decision to call for a vote on this issue would:

• Destroy the consensus-based spirit that is the fundamental bedrock of the Convention.

• Send a clear signal to all other Parties that their views do not count.

• Enable the EU to force the rejection of a legally correct decision on the basis of political motives.

• Undermine the rules of procedure of the Convention.

We firmly believe that the amendments of the decision proposed by the EU would strongly undermine the Convention and its compliance mechanism. [Furthermore] the EU would return from Montenegro with its reputation in disgrace, having lost all credibility as a proponent of democratic norms.

[Statement from Norway and Swiss delegation].

But it gets even worse. As one NGO noted : 

 A day after European Commission President Juncker declared the rule of law to be one of three principles that must anchor the European Union in his State of the Union address, the EU has been heavily criticised for its failure to accept an international panel’s ruling that it is not ensuring adequate access to justice for its citizens at EU level.

I have to be honest. I didn't think the NGOs had it in them to stand up to the might of the EU Commission. I'm happy to be proved wrong. 

The reality is the European Union is just like any large State Power that has ever existed in the world. It dislikes immensely the idea of the individual citizen having a say in it's affairs or challenging it's decisions in the courts. It seeks to consolidate it's power, rather than divest it. We saw this during the Irish vote on the Lisbon Treaty. We are seeing it again in relation to it's obligations to the Aarhus Convention, the ultimate citizen empowering Treaty.

The full statement made by the coalition of NGOs is well worth a read for those interested in the technical details of what happened during last weeks events : 


http://eeb.org/eu-slammed-for-lack-of-respect-for-rule-of-law-on-environmental-justice/

Should Ireland Leave the EU ?

A new report by Ray Bassett outlines just how hard it's going to be for Ireland to avoid consideration of an Irexit after Brexit . Right now, our politicians don't want to contemplate leaving the EU and are proudly wearing the EU jersey's. But as Bassett points out, so much of our economies are intertwined and inter-dependent that at some stage Ireland will have no choice but to contemplate an exit. Throw into the mix the direction EU is heading and things get even worse for Ireland. The full report can be read here and it's worthwhile reading through it all :

https://policyexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/After-Brexit-will-Ireland-be-next-to-exit.pdf

The loss of influence has been seen in the European Parliament. The concept of a directly elected European Parliament makes no sense unless the aim is a United States of Europe. The democratic element in the EU is provided for by the individual governments and their parliaments. For a country like Ireland to agree to transfer powers to an institution like the European Parliament where it has little or no say, given the relative sizes of the Member States, is bizarre to say the least. However, Ireland has been enthusiastic about giving up its powers to this unwieldly body.

Personally, even as a Euro-skeptic,  I think it's wise at this early stage to stick with team EU to see how the dice will fall, however, the option to leave must be put firmly on the table to strengthen our hand.   

Therefore, given the circumstances, Irexit has to be the option for Ireland in a hard Brexit situation. In any negotiation, there must be a bottom line and if breached, the option of walking away must always be there. Irexit is a definite option for Ireland, should the UK and the EU not arrive at a satisfactory deal.

At some stage, as Bassett's report points out, we are going to have to weigh up the costs and benefits of leaving the EU. Better to begin planning now. A Brexit minister should be appointed straight away. Instead, our government will focus on climate change and other trivial matters by comparison.

Irish Nationalist Political Party declare sovereignty as "backward-looking idea"

One of the most remarkable political speeches in my lifetime was made this week in Ireland's Parliament. Yet the Irish media were entirely silent on it's significance. 

The two major political parties in Ireland, Fianna Fail and Fine Gael, split in 1922 because Fianna Fail considered the Treaty that Ireland made with Britain didn't go far enough in terms of granting sovereignty back to Ireland. In 1921, the President of Ireland and future leader of Fianna Fail until 1959, Eamonn De Valera, made the following speech :

PRESIDENT DE VALERA: We definitely understood when we used the word plenipotentiaries. One of the Deputies of South Dublin asked me about the word and I said we understood it means they have full power to negotiate and to take responsibility for negotiating and signing. The word really meant the power of negotiating. They had their own responsibility for negotiating and signing. There is no treaty in recent times that is not brought to the main assembly for ratification or rejection. The plenipotentiaries have full power to negotiate and sign, they have not full powers to sign for the nation. I hold ratification is absolutely impossible for this Assembly. This Assembly cannot ratify a Treaty which takes away from the Irish people the sovereignty of the Irish people.

Almost one hundred years later, the current leader of Fianna Fail, Michael Martin, made the following speech :

Let there be no doubt about where Ireland stands. We want nothing to do with a backward-looking idea of sovereignty.

He went on to say, presumably aiming for some kind of statesman like ideal :

"We remain absolutely committed to the ideals of the European Union."We see the union for what it is - the most successful international organisation in world history."The union is flawed, but its successes are undeniable."

It is hard to think of any EU successes that relate to Ireland. It was the EU who forced Ireland to pay billions of euros to unsecured bondholders. The EU might be successful for some, for corporatism and Statists and for Germany who benefit from the cheap currency, but for small nations like Ireland we are easily nudged aside. That's why Iceland has remained outside of the EU. Hoping that Ireland will somehow be treated nicely by the EU in the Brexit negotiations is not backed up by past experience.

It was Ireland's sovereign status which allowed De Valera maintain Irish neutrality throughout World War II, a success which helped make Fianna Fail the most popular party for generations afterwards. Now that they want to discard sovereignty (or outsource it to Brussels), Ireland can no longer remain neutral under Fianna Fail.   You can't have neutrality without sovereignty. 

Although I doubt it was the original intention, Fianna Fail have in effect, fought for Irish sovereignty, not for the right of the Irish people to have sovereignty but for the right to throw it away to someone else.  

Ireland's Debt Problem

An economic policy based on rising debt and low corporate tax rates is not and never was sound policy - by Owen Martin

While the Irish media make a fuss over who will be the next leader of Ireland's biggest political party (Fine Gael), everybody ignores the real elephant in the room. According to the European Banking Authority, Ireland has the largest combined private and government debt as a percentage of GDP in the EU and two thirds higher than that of the US. 

 I'm not sure how this graph is not sending shockwaves through the Trump obsessed Irish media and political establishment - From EBA 

   
While Greece, Italy and Portugal have higher Government debt, Ireland's private sector debt to GDP dwarfs those countries. Which means that for the size of Ireland's economy, it's private sector has taken on alot of debt.

But not only businesses and industry. We have the 5th highest household debt as percentage of net disposable income in EU with about twice as much debt as income per household. This may explain how we rank so high in numbers of new cars across the EU.   People are taking out car loans that perhaps they can't really afford. It shows that we as a nation are still addicted to debt.

https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-debt.htm

Denmark, Netherlands, Iceland and Norway all have higher household debt than Ireland but these countries are doing much better when it comes to Government debt as percentage of GDP. Ireland ranks 5th in terms of Government debt to GDP. So while Greece and Italy have higher levels of government debt, they have about half of the household and private sector debt. Denmark's high level of household debt doesn't seem as bad considering they have half of Ireland's Government debt to GDP. 

https://data.oecd.org/gga/central-government-spending.htm#indicator-chart

Norway have the wealthiest government in Europe. In fact, they are far ahead of second place Luxembourg and Finland. Norway has slightly more household debt than Ireland. But that kinda makes sense - they are a wealthy country. Ireland has the 5th poorest Government in Europe (Italy and Greece lie at the bottom). Our government has dismal revenue, in part thanks to our low corporation tax rates. Yet we carry roughly the same household debt as Norway and have an even higher private sector debt to GDP.  This is called "living beyond our means".  Yes, Ireland could do with the € 13 billion in tax revenue owed from Apple. Laughably, the Irish government is appealing this decision. 

https://data.oecd.org/gga/general-government-financial-wealth.htm#indicator-chart

Irish Govt has the worst revenue in Europe yet reject a €13 billion EU tax ruling made in Ireland's favour

Of course if all that debt was used wisely, perhaps we could become richer. We are reliant on Norway's gas which arrives to us through UK pipelines. The Irish government have banned fracking so this dependence will continue for the foreseeable future. Imagine if some of that debt was being used to extract our own gas reserves.

Ireland spends the most on health after Iceland in Europe, yet we still have a permanently dysfunctional health system. 

Ireland has the third highest electricity prices in Europe.

The Irish government takes pride in divesting from fossil fuels and pushing through massive renewables and electricity infrastructure programmes that cost billions and without any proper assessment in the name of climate change.  We pride ourselves on having a massive welfare program and our representatives want to take in more refugees (without any proper assessment). Green/Left politicians cry out as to why we don't do more to tackle climate change, take on more debt (One cannot go the EIB looking for €5 million or €10 million; one needs to go looking for €2 billion. It is there.) and take in more refugees. Ireland is trying to save the world on a sinking ship but our politicians and media don't even realize we are on one.  Have we learned anything from the crash in 2008 ?


POSITIVES

On the positive side, exports are still strong and benefit from the stronger dollar as against the euro. If we went back to our own currency, it would be a strong one as the above graph shows. Presumably thanks to our exports. However, the weaker sterling is not good for exports to Britain. There is a chance that Ireland may actually benefit from Brexit if companies there relocate to Ireland. 

https://data.oecd.org/gga/general-government-deficit.htm#indicator-chart

Ireland has managed to get out of it's budget deficit abyss and back to something fairly normal. If Multinationals move out we could see some real problems, but we would no longer see the massive distortions to our GDP anymore. Perhaps that could be a good thing in the long run. Living on a false economy (now known as Leprechaun economics) is what got us into trouble last time.

I can't see how Ireland's economic fundamentals are much different to that of the Celtic Tiger era.   If anything, things have got worse.

Hinkley Point

I've written previously about the economics of electricity generation here. 

The Hinkley Point debacle has confirmed my analysis. Modern power stations have become uneconomical to run, investors demand large subsidies as incentive to build them, governments have to keep the lights on while satisfying the ever increasing demands of the greens and their cohorts in the renewable unreliable energy industry.

It can only end in disaster, unless that is, Greg Clark and Theresa May can bring normality back to the post Brexit UK energy market. 

They will need to move quicker on the Article 50 button before the lights go out.  

ESRI Report on Brexit

The ESRI report on Brexit warns about the implications for the All Island Electricity Market. ESRI economic forecasts have being proven wrong before, most famously when they predicted a "soft landing" in 2008. This recent report seems to have flaws as well.

•  The first point that needs to be noted is the fact that an all-island electricity market has existed since 2007. Interconnection between Ireland and Northern Ireland is particularly important for Northern Ireland which relies on electricity imports from Ireland to make up for insufficient local electricity generation capacity.

Northern Ireland has a capacity shortage. Now that they are outside the EU, they can ignore EU Directives on power stations, reverse the closure of their coal plants, and open a new power station if required. This is an easy solution to their problems, it's also cheaper than building the North South Interconnector, but somehow ESRI failed to spot it.

• Hence the UK government considered trading in renewable electricity with Ireland, which could have reduced the cost of UK compliance. However, negotiations on this strategy stalled because of a reluctance to pay the necessary subsidy to Irish producers, in spite of the fact that it would have reduced the overall cost of compliance for the UK. 

Cost was only one issue. The UK officials realized that there was a high correlation of wind between the two islands i.e when wind is blowing in the UK, it is blowing in Ireland and vice versa. This reduces the benefits of importing wind from Ireland.

•  If the UK left the EU it would no longer be subject to EU regulatory measures to deal with a possible crisis situation in the case of a gas or oil shortage. Ireland would then have to consider how best to provide protection from very unlikely, but potentially catastrophic outcomes. Gas supplies are of crucial importance to Ireland because gas plays a central role in electricity generation. Because of this, any interruption to supply could have very serious consequences. 

I thought that Ireland's goal was to be energy independent by building wind farms ? So why will there be a problem if UK can't supply gas to us anymore ? An inherent, but unwritten, assumption in the ESRI report is that investment in wind energy will not make us materially any less dependent on gas imports.  So why are they pushing the wind policy ?

In reality, should a wide gap open up between UK and Ireland in terms of one country pursuing EU energy policy for the next 10-20 years and the other not, then Ireland will become more and more dependent on UK for electricity. EU energy policy may well result in the closure of uneconomical Irish power stations whilst UK will be free to build more.

Collapse of the Sterling ?

Brexit (Or Not) : Lessons From Lisbon

 "Oh, no, no I've been through this movie before - Bob Dylan, 1964

Broken words never meant to be spoken,  Broken treaties broken vows, People bending broken rules, Everything is broken - Bob Dylan 1989

Opinion by Owen Martin.

Last Thursday's Brexit vote has re-shaped British politics for good or for bad. It was akin to throwing up all the pieces of a chess game into the air and re-starting the game wherever the pieces happened to land.   From an energy and climate point of view it is too early to say what will happen. Ireland may not have to build the North South Interconnector if the North revokes the EU legislation which prevents them from keeping their power stations open. Who knows, Britain may go into a period of traditional common sense where they dont have to worry about (nor spend billions on) changing the weather anymore. But any myriad number of things could happen between now and the time Article 50 is triggered, and between the time it is triggered and UK effectively withdrawing from the EU (Personally I was hoping to buy cheaper stuff from England but the sterling hasnt dropped as much as the media made out). 

The following diagram is fairly self explanatory and comes from a Norwegian newspaper. 
There are many hurdles that must be crossed before Britain makes an effective withdrawal, if it does at all. 

One possible option is that the political class that are saying now that they accept the result will change their minds in six months time as events sweep the political landscape from under their feet both at British and European level. Who knows where the pieces will land ? But haven't Ireland been here before ?

In 2008, Ireland voted No to the Lisbon Treaty. In 2009, they were asked again. This time they voted Yes to the same but slightly amended referendum. In the intervening years, there was no great political shake-up.  The Prime Minister, unlike in Britain, remained in office until the next general election in 2011. The opposition leader, Enda Kenny, also remained as leader. It wasn't until 2010 that opposition backbenchers revolted but Kenny successfully fought them off and is now Prime Minister (since 2011). Contrast this to what is happening in the days following Britain's cataclysmic vote. Of course, their vote is somewhat more serious although there was a real danger that Ireland would get left behind after their No Vote in 2008. 

Let's see what was said at the time in 2008 after the initial vote :

Prime Minister, Brian Cowen

And again 

And again 

The Minister For Foreign Affairs was at it aswell :

And the Left Wing Opposition :

Britain's Foreign Secretary was also very clear :

Financial turmoil was the result :

The No side were accused of lying :

A second referendum was not possible :

Sound familiar ?

A year later, Ireland were given another chance and this time voted Yes.  Of course, the EU could not continue without Ireland's ratification as other member states threatened legal action. Could it continue without UK membership ? The UK is the second largest intra-EU importer of goods and the second largest net contributor to the EU budget (worth about € 85 bn per year to the EU combined), so possibly not. We are about to find out.

The day after the Brexit referendum the mainstream media were busy telling us that Leave Voters didn't know what they were voting on, that they hadn't understood the issues at all : 

It is far more likely that the 28% of the electorate who hadn't bothered to vote were the ones busy googling the "EU". But Google and the media have planted the seeds of doubt. This is most likely a prelude to the Post - Vote Poll which I have no doubt will confirm their contention that leave voters, in general, were clueless. Here is the Post-vote poll taken after Lisbon Treaty Referendum Part 1 :

40% of the No voters didnt understand, so the referendum had to be run again and the rest is history. 

With the Tory leadership contest not happening for another three months, anything could happen in the meantime.

Brexit : What The Irish Media Don't Tell You

The Irish media have been forecasting imminent doom for Irish businesses in the event that the UK pull out of the European Union :

• “You can track the Irish export-led recovery, moving in perfect lockstep with the fall in the euro/sterling exchange rate. What’s the first knee-jerk reaction on the UK leaving the EU? The pound weakens.
• This would drive sterling’s value down against the euro, weakening the return to Irish exporters from their sales in the British market. There would be major implications for Irish food and drink companies.

While it's true there will be some short term weakness in the sterling,  had the UK joined the Euro project in the first place, Irish exports would never have been able to do as well as they did in the last few years as the current strong sterling would not exist. 

With the Irish media / establishment now getting hysterical about Brexit and a weaker sterling, what they don't tell you is that the sterling fell in value back in 2003 when Britain were poised to join the Euro : 

Thankfully, and to Gordon Brown's eternal credit, Britain never joined the Euro. But Ireland's political establishment were clamoring for them to join at the time. Fianna Fail, the party who the majority of Irish people voted for twice in the past decade, and who then proceeded to drive the economy over a cliff, were also pushing a policy back in 2003 that would have damaged Irish exports in the recent recovery by encouraging Britain to join the Euro : 

While some of the personnel have since changed, it's still the same clueless people in charge pushing crazy policies.

An Interview with Peter Hitchens

There is currently much debate about Brexit in the Irish media, mostly from the Pro European Union side with scare stories about how Ireland's economy will fall off a precipice should Britain decide to exit the European Union on June 23rd.  The debate, this side of the water at any rate, seems to be devoid of any balance. 

Peter Hitchens is a columnist with the Mail on Sunday and has written several books including The Abolition of Britain and The War We Never Fought. He has kindly agreed to do an interview which includes discussion on Brexit, Energy and Climate and a host of other issues. Questions by Owen Martin.

Q:   I’m probably one of the few Irish people who voted Yes in the original Lisbon Treaty Referendum, but voted No in the second one. The Lisbon Treaty had reasonable stated aims :

•  It shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment.

The problem was that the European Union simply did not honour its pledge. Going back to the early days of the European Union, was its original intention to be a force for good, e.g. to prevent wars etc  ?

PH: You need to read Christopher Booker and Richard North’s ‘The Great Deception’, and also Hugo Young’s ‘This Blessed Plot’, for a discussion of the origins of the EU. There is no doubt that these are *political* not economic, born out of a desire to create a supranational body which will, slice by slice and generally very quietly,  remove power from national governments. This Utopian project claims to intend to end war. All Utopian projects have such claims. But given that one of the world’s worst wars, the American Civil War, was fought to maintain a supranational government against secession, one has to doubt its validity.

Q:  The Remainers will say that UK has a seat at the table and should be influencing EU policy not pulling out. That with perseverance, you can bring the changes in the EU that are for the better of everyone ?

PH: I have never found this persuasive. Outsiders have plenty of influence on bodies, especially if they have something to give, and something to take away. The old Leninist ‘Who Whom?’ test suggests that a single member of the EU has very little influence. The defence of specific national interests is not allowed for in the QMV system, nor is it meant to be.

Q.     Is there a breaking point for the EU ? A lot of people thought the Greek and Irish crises would spell the end of the Euro and/or EU, and then similarly the refugee crisis but instead it’s 2016 and we are talking about EU expansion.

PH: I think this is a ‘Eurosceptic’ fantasy. The founders and maintainers of the EU have always had a burning political purpose and are prepared , quite properly, to make sacrifices for it.  The EU may well decide to create a ‘Core Europe’ whose members will proceed to a much more complete integration, while second-class members remain much as they are, but that is just a sensible adaptation.

Q.     One of the arguments in favour of the EU is that it helped Eastern European countries such as Poland escape Communism. I also heard the same argument made about Portugal [Note: the Portugal argument was made on BBC Newsnight this week].

PH: I know of no evidence that the EU played any significant part in either process. Portugal, of course,  was never a Communist country.

Q.     Is the rise of the far right and left around Europe a natural reaction to EU’s plans for ever closer union ?

PH: No, it is largely a response to mass immigration. Most people couldn’t care less about ever-closer union..

Q.     In Ireland, we have the whip system. Those who fundamentally disagree with their Party on issues are forced to either conform, run as independent or form a new Party. In the event the Remain side wins, do you foresee a breakaway group formed by Brexitiers from different parties ?

PH: I doubt it. Tories are absurdly loyal to their party, more loyal to it than they are to their country. Why change now?  

Q.     Despite installing hundreds of billions of Euros worth of renewable infrastructure, carbon emissions are rising throughout the EU and the EU is more dependent on fuel imports than it was in the 1980s. Electricity Prices are skyrocketing resulting in industry jumping ship to America and Asia. The recent finding by UNECE Compliance Committee that the EU failed to ensure proper public participation in Ireland’s energy plans has been largely ignored by the European Commission. They now have backtracked on biofuel targets.  It’s environmental policies has been a mess from start to finish, yet as Colm McCarthy has said, when faced with a problem, the modern political solution is to repeat the same mistake double-fold. Even if Britain does stay in, won’t resentment grow throughout Europe anyway ? And isn’t this how Empires throughout history (if we can class European Union as one) collapsed in the end, rather than through plebiscites ?

PH: Possibly. As I don’t take the man-made climate change case very seriously, or regard these policies as being effective in dealing with it even if it is a genuine threat, I don’t much care. Dogma of all kinds drives nations and crowds mad.

Q.     Norway supplies something like a third of EU gas imports and 11% of its oil imports. Norway and Iceland are the third and fourth largest exporter of fish to the EU. Switzerland are one of the top exporters of goods to the EU. All three countries are outside the EU. Obviously, EU needs these countries more than they need EU. But these countries have another thing in common, namely they all have some form of direct democracy (granted Norway’s is only advisory rather than legal). Do you see direct democracy as a better system than plain vanilla democracy we have in Britain and Ireland ?

PH: No

Q.     The British media, and indeed in Ireland, portray Ireland as net beneficiaries of the EU. However, if you do the sums, we received about €9 billion in terms of farm subsidies and road funding but an ex IMF official has stated that the ECB forced Ireland to pay €8 bn to unsecured bondholders which we did not have to pay.  If you throw in EU Directives like Renewable and Water Directives, that have pushed taxes up further, it’s hard to see how Ireland is economically better off inside the EU ?

PH: I do not know enough to comment on this. I had the impression that Ireland, like Poland now, had been an EU favourite (as a pro EU ‘Anglo-Saxon’ state)  and was rewarded with huge infrastructure grants . But I have never looked into it. What a pity so much of it was spent on hideous motorways, and so little on railways and trams.

Q.  If UK do leave the EU in June, do you have any faith in the current British democratic system in solving the problems that you highlight ?

PH: I have no faith in the existing political parties. I have given up any sort of active politics, since the absurd survival of the Tory Party in 2010 when it ought to have collapsed and split. I merely write the national obituary.

Q.  In the event of Brexit, how do you see Irish and British relations ? Will we see borders in Northern Ireland again ?

PH: I hate the word ‘Brexit’, which conjures up in my mind the picture of a disgusting laxative breakfast cereal. I do not think Britain can leave the EU.

Q.  Quite a lot of the arguments made against Brexit both in UK and (particularly) in Ireland refer to the short term negative economic impacts that would result. Is this type of thinking a symptom of the wider culture of today that puts short term gain ahead of long term interests ?

PH: Yes. I am amazed that the fundamental question of independence barely arises. The level of the debate is woeful and tedious, bald men arguing over possession of a comb.

Q.  This week, a small community in Donegal found their local environment, one of the most scenic places in the British Isles, altered forever by a large industrial windfarm. This is a place where one could not get planning permission for a garden shed let alone something of this size.  There seems to be a total disconnect between laws made by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels and the people that they eventually impact on.

PH: Indeed. This is what empires are like. It is a great paradox that the Irish struggle for freedom has ended with Ireland becoming a German province.  The only compensation for a nationalist is that England has become one too.

Q.  You are a vocal critic of the Tory Party in its current guise. One thing they have done though, which no other British Party apart from UKIP would have done is offered a referendum on EU Membership.

PH: This offer was not genuine, and made in the confident belief that the Tories would not win a majority in May 2015.

  

Q.  They have also abolished subsidies for wind energy which the SNP and Labour criticised them over. Are these signs that the Tories still have some capacity to reform in the future ?

PH: Not fundamentally, no.

Q.  Is part of the problem, especially in these times of social media and headline driven media, that a complex message is much harder to get across than a simpler one ? This would apply as much to Parties on the Left as on the Right ? 

PH: A complex message is almost impossible to get across. NB James Carville’s first rule of political survival ‘While you’re explaining, you’re losing’.

Q.  Is the climate change movement simply a new religion ?

PH: It is certainly a new public dogma, and it is a lot more risky to express doubts about it than it is to be a fashionable atheist. But as it does not require its devotees to improve their own selves, it is more of a cult than a religion.

Q.  When J.Corbyn took over as leader of Labour, his aims included renationalising railways and Royal Mail as well as setting up a National Investment Bank to revitalize British manufacturing. It could be argued that these are reasonably sound policies. However, European Competition law would likely not allow him to implement them. Mr Corbyn is now campaigning to remain in EU. Does this show lack of decisiveness on his part ?

PH: Alas, yes.

Q.  Mr Corbyn was once a defender of coal workers rights, but has now bought the Green Party / EU anti-coal climate change line.  Are the traditional Labour Party roots been torn apart and if so, can they ever achieve electoral success again ?

PH: I do not think it has anything to do with electoral success. A party genuinely committed to these aims which fought hard enough might win an election. But few have the nerve to take the risk. Real politics dies when a country is taken over by the EU. All parties are compelled to accept the EU position, or the media and the establishment culture shouts them down and declares that they are ‘extremist’. You know politics is dead when the media spend more time attacking the opposition than they do criticising the government.

Q.  The Greens get about 2-3% of the vote in both Britain and in Ireland but quite a lot of their policies get rammed through nonetheless. How can a minority movement with such little support wield such power ?

PH: Your guess is as good as mine. People want and need to believe in something. So they do.

Q.  I’m in my 30s and can just about remember as a child seeing “Made in England” on the back of spoons and knives. Now, steel factories are closing in Britain. Is it the death knell for British manufacturing ? What is the wider cultural impact from such closures ?

PH: They probably weren’t actually made in England, just finished there. Nicholas Comfort has written an interesting book on the death of British manufacturing industry, a 60-year process of bad luck, incompetence and bad decisions, finished off by the EU.

Q.  England is concerned understandably about the level of immigration into the country. But isn't a certain level of immigration required to maintain a growing economy ?

PH: No .We have a million young people doing precisely nothing, and abort 180,000 healthy babies every year.

Q.  Hillary Clinton, President Obama and Cameron were mainly responsible for the war in Libya which has created so much instability in the world. Yet all three are very popular with voters. Is the reason weak political opposition or just ineffective media ?

PH: Both, but add very poor levels of education, and the dreadful conformism which pervades a society in which TV is the main medium of instruction.

Q.  Are the modern economic ideals of continuous growth really realistic and/or sustainable ?

PH: I suspect not, but I have no expertise in the matter.

Q.  The polls are continuously being proven wrong- the British General Election and the rise of Trump for example. Credit Ratings Agencies have also proven to be completely wrong. Most, if not all, of the predictions made by “climate change experts” have failed to materialize. Are we living in a world where too much faith is placed in “experts” ?

PH: Undoubtedly

Q.  There is increasing discussion in Ireland about the growing rural/city divide, that people in towns and cities should not be subsidizing those who live in rural areas. But while taxpayers subsidize a lot of things they often don’t like, only certain things get singled out. The cost of prisons and foreign aid for example are not up for discussion. Why do you think this is ?

PH: Because such campaigns invariably have a sectional or political purpose, and seek to focus minds on the subject where they want to influence opinion. Huge amounts of money and time are spent on manipulating the public mind. It is one of the prices we pay for the absurd system of universal suffrage democracy. You have to get people to think they want the things they are going to get anyway.

Q.  You’ve written an excellent book “The Abolition of Liberty” which helps explain the rise of crime in the past century. There is also a problem with the massaging of official crime statistics, since proven to be the case here in Ireland too. Was crime more of an issue in elections in the past and why isn’t it an issue now ?

PH: I don’t believe it was. Almost nobody has read my book. If they did, the debate about crime and punishment in our societies would be wholly different, rather than the ignorant drivel we have now. I suspect most people have now got used to living in a more disorderly society than we had before, and one in which all freedom will have to be constrained to cope with this.

Q.  Quite a lot of Irish readers will probably wonder what the function of the Monarchy is in the 21st century although the visit by the Queen to Ireland in 2011 was warmly welcomed here (with few exceptions).  How do you see her role ?

PH: To occupy a space in  politics which politicians will otherwise seek, and should never have, that of respect and love. The constitutional monarchy is like the King on the chessboard, powerless, but also occupying space which no other can occupy. Nobody understands this any more, and the monarchy rests only on the personal popularity of Elizabeth II . I doubt it will long survive her.

Q.  Michael O’Leary (a fervent Remain campaigner) once said that the local newsagent would soon be a thing of the past and this was an example of sound free market economics winning out.  Would you agree ?

PH: Yes. This is why I do not support free market liberalism.

Q.  Would you say it’s harder growing up now than in the 1950s ?

PH: Undoubtedly. The children of today are far less safe, far less free, far less well-educated,  far less in touch with their roots and past, and presented with an economic and political landscape of terrifying uncertainty.

Q.  Albert Einstein is quoted as saying that “it has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity”. Do you see technology as a great enabler or is there a cultural / social cost to relying too much technology ?

PH: I think technology should be our servant, not our master. I wince to see the transformation of humans into zombies by mobile telephones.