Some of you wish to post items based on Labour’s latest campaign about the conduct of Conservative MPs. Others wish to counter post, examining cases involving Labour MPs and their conduct. This site has no wish to do this and is not equipped to investigate the truth or falsehood of the various charges being made. Both sides need to understand that both sides will have their posts binned to be consistent and fair. Writing and  publishing an untrue attack on anyone could be a libel.

As we near a final text from COP 26 it appears the main producers of CO2 in the world are wedded to their fossil fuel economies and most plan to produce more CO2 over the next few years. China is planning more coal power stations, Germany is keen to keep hers at least for this decade, India thinks she needs to burn more fossil fuels to grow her way to  better prosperity. There will be no new Treaty out of Glasgow. The idea was to flesh out the Paris Agreement with detailed national plans and targets, and to move towards more global enforcement of action through sharing information and applying moral pressure to countries that are falling short. There was never any plan to have an EU like structure with enforcement in court and with sanctions against non compliance.

Meanwhile the rich and powerful of the world turn to carbon offsets to allow themselves to enjoy private jets, air conditioned hotels, grand meat meals and the rest. Faced with charges of hypocrisy when they lecture the rest of us on stopping travel by passenger jet or diesel car, and criticising our reliance on gas boilers and meat from the supermarket, they tell us they have offset their more extravagant carbon based lives by buying pardons. They identify an investment in trees or windfarms or solar panels somewhere and claim that part investment as an offset for their carbon generation. The offset market can grow massively, as there is a plentiful supply of potential projects that some agency will rate as suitable as an offset.

The EU has also established a system of carbon permits. If a company wishes to burn fossil fuels to make steel or cement, it needs to buy or be granted carbon permits to allow it to burn the necessary fossil fuels in the process. There is much discussion about what the price of the carbon permits should be. The market in them has recently driven the price up to Euros 60 a tonne of carbon. This is now a substantial added cost on industrial activities that require a substantial fossil fuel input.

I would be interested in your reactions to this activity. There is a need to avoid scams and greenwashing. There has to  be an understanding that this will make things dearer as the cost of carbon taxation enters the industrial calculations.

I was talking to a London taxi driver yesterday about the new electric cabs. He pointed out that they also contain a 1.5 l petrol engine which can be turned on to keep the battery charged. Apparently to get the range for a day’s work the petrol engines are much used. Such developments need to be taken fully into account when trying to work out how to decarbonise transport.

The UK’s national income per head is higher than France, Italy and Spain,  but a bit lower than Germany. All are massively lower than Ireland’s. The Republic of Ireland has a per capita income more than twice the UK’s and three times Spain’s. The main reason is Ireland has held its company tax rates down to 12.5%, far lower than the other larger European countries. As a result large US and other overseas companies have wanted to set up in Ireland and book more of their activities through Ireland to take advantage of the lower tax rate. Far from collecting less company tax through lower rates, Ireland collects far more company tax as a percentage of the economy than the countries setting higher rates.

President Biden’s success in getting leading countries to approve his idea of a minimum level of corporation tax worldwide will mean Ireland will lose a little of its advantage, being persuaded to put its rate up to 15%. This will still leave it below most of the other larger European countries.

The UK should use this opportunity to increase its company tax receipts by lowering the rates. The UK could now match Ireland with a 15% rate. This would doubtless be a good draw for large companies to locate more to the UK, and  would remove the big competitive advantage Ireland gives herself by her current very low rate. Why don’t the Treasury want to increase the tax take from companies and boost National Income? How much more evidence do they want that lower rates are successful?

Figures in US $ from World Bank Per capita GDP

France   39,030

Germany   46,208

Ireland  85,267

Italy  31,676

Japan   39,538

Spain 27,063

UK    40,284

USA     63,543

The EU has as it would say “broken the law”. They have reneged on the UK Agreement.

Article 1 of the Northern Ireland Protocol states

“This Protocol is without prejudice to the provisions of the 1998 Agreement in respect of the constitutional status of Northern Ireland and the principle of consent which provides that any change in the status can only be made with the consent of the people”

The loyalist community sees that  the Protocol has cut them off from important parts of the UK state and placed them under EU rules and controls. They are losing their right to import from GB and to have the same laws as GB without their consent.

The Article affirms that “This Protocol respects the essential state functions and territorial integrity of the UK”. Not the way the EU is interpreting it.

Article 6 of the Protocol states

“having regard to Northern Ireland’s integral place in the UK the Union and the UK shall use their best endeavours to facilitate trade between Northern Ireland and other parts of the UK”

Instead the EU has gone out of its way to disrupt GB to NI trade and to divert trade to NI/EU.

The opening to the Protocol sets out the overarching aims for help in interpreting the text. These include:

Having regard to the importance of maintaining the integral place of BI in the UK’s internal market

Recalling that NI is part of the customs territory of the UK

Determined it should impact as little as possible on the everyday life of communities in both Ireland and NI…

All of these have been violated badly by the EU

Article 16 allows the UK or the EU to  take unilateral action to remedy issues where there are “serious economic, social or environmental difficulties” or where trade is diverted. These tests are clearly met.

The EU would be wise to apologise for breaking the Agreement, and should take action to correct the difficulties it has created for NI and the UK single market.

The EU has as it would say “broken the law”. They have reneged on the UK Agreement.

Article 1 of the Northern Ireland Protocol states

“This Protocol is without prejudice to the provisions of the 1998 Agreement in respect of the constitutional status of Northern Ireland and the principle of consent which provides that any change in the status can only be made with the consent of the people”

The loyalist community sees that  the Protocol has cut them off from important parts of the UK state and placed them under EU rules and controls. They are losing their right to import from GB and to have the same laws as GB without their consent.

The Article affirms that “This Protocol respects the essential state functions and territorial integrity of the UK”. Not the way the EU is interpreting it.

Article 6 of the Protocol states

“having regard to Northern Ireland’s integral place in the UK the Union and the UK shall use their best endeavours to facilitate trade between Northern Ireland and other parts of the UK”

Instead the EU has gone out of its way to disrupt GB to NI trade and to divert trade to NI/EU.

The opening to the Protocol sets out the overarching aims for help in interpreting the text. These include:

Having regard to the importance of maintaining the integral place of BI in the UK’s internal market

Recalling that NI is part of the customs territory of the UK

Determined it should impact as little as possible on the everyday life of communities in both Ireland and NI…

All of these have been violated badly by the EU

Article 16 allows the UK or the EU to  take unilateral action to remedy issues where there are “serious economic, social or environmental difficulties” or where trade is diverted. These tests are clearly met.

The EU would be wise to apologise for breaking the Agreement, and should take action to correct the difficulties it has created for NI and the UK single market.