The Sunday Telegraph - 11.08.2019

20 ***^ Sunday 11 August 2019 The Sunday Telegraph

S

ome very clever Tories have

talked themselves into a very

silly corner on tax cuts. They

think the party is a victim of its own

success: increases to the personal

allowance have taken so many

people out of income tax – 43 per

cent of adults don’t pay it, according

to the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS)

• that a tax-cutting agenda would
  have little electoral appeal. Why vote
  for lower taxes, they wonder, if you
  don’t pay taxes anyway?
  It isn’t a very logical view: are they
  suggesting that the tax burden on the
  poorest will need to rise so that those
  same voters can support reducing that
  burden? It is also perfectly rational to
  dislike a tax even if you don’t pay it.
  Inheritance tax is not levied
  on many estates and yet is
  overwhelmingly unpopular because it
  is unfair. And you are unlikely to stay
  stuck on the same income throughout
  your life anyway. That IFS study, for
  example, found that a quarter of those
  in the top one per cent of earners in
  a given year will not be there in the
  next.
  In any case, it is a fallacy that lower
  earners are lightly taxed. There is
  National Insurance (income tax
  by another name). Then there are
  the endless levies that are imposed
  regardless of income, from council
  tax to VAT. Not to mention the whole
  gamut of optional “charges” that
  are increasingly impossible to avoid


• everything from garden waste

T

he BBC, misreporting a United
Nations report, wants us to
switch to a mostly plant-based
diet in order to alter the weather.
Would it work? No. A recent “meta-
analysis” of all the peer-reviewed
papers on this topic found that if the
average Westerner gave up meat
altogether it would cut their total
emissions by just 4.3 per cent. This is
because food is only a modest part of
our emissions. And since vegetables
are cheap, the savings would almost
certainly be spent on other things
with emissions attached, so the
actual reduction would be even
smaller than that. The effect on the
climate would be unmeasurable.
“Eating carrots instead of steak
means you effectively cut your
emissions by about two per cent,” says
the environmental economist Bjorn
Lomborg. “As a vegetarian for ethical
reasons, I will be the first to say that
there are many good reasons to eat less
meat. Sadly, making a huge difference
to the climate isn’t one of them.”
Although the BBC seems oddly
obsessed with the topic of meat at
least it does not intend to force us
to become vegetarians, let alone
vegans. Or does it? Last November the
former head of the UN Framework
Convention on Climate Change,
Christiana Figueres, mused: “How
about restaurants in 10-15 years start
treating carnivores the same way that
smokers are treated? If they want to
eat meat, they can do it outside the

The state should let us know the

true extent of what it taxes us

The war on meat has begun, and there

are many reasons to join the resistance

collection fees to the cost of hospital

car parking.

Many of them are convenient little

revenue-raisers either because they

only affect narrow groups of people

at specific times or they are collected

by stealth. Air passenger duty is one

of the exceptions: it is shocking, when

you buy a plane ticket, to see the price

breakdown showing that invariably

over half is accounted for by tax.

Elsewhere, the burden is hidden in

the shadows. VAT on general goods

and duties on alcohol are wrapped

into the price displayed on the

shelves, so many people do not notice

just how much more expensive the

Government makes their shopping. In

other countries, shops show the

pre-tax price instead.

I have argued previously that

pay-as-you-earn tax collection should

be scrapped: it is no coincidence

that those who do tax returns tend

to have a more acute understanding

of the true scale of the burden given

that they must carve their payment

to HMRC out of money that has

already sat happily in their bank

account. Sunlight could be a similar

disinfectant for the superstructure

of stealth charges and indirect levies

that follow us around our daily lives

and yet are barely mentioned in public

debate.

Taxpayers receive an annual

personalised summary from HMRC,

showing how much they have paid in

National Insurance contributions and

income tax. Surely it is not beyond

the wit of the taxman to include an

indicative summary of what someone

on your income level is also likely to

have paid in other charges?

Yes, it would be imperfect. But we

have a right to know the total cost of

the state.

It is very difficult for humans to thrive

on a purely plant-based diet. Unless

they are affluent and have access to

balanced nutrition, vegan children

become deficient in iron and vitamin

A, stunted in growth and delayed in

brain development. A study in rural

Kenya found that eating eggs made

children grow five per cent faster.

This is why globally, as living

standards rise, meat and dairy

consumption is increasing twice as

fast as population. Throughout the

developing world, when people get

access to dairy products and meat,

their stature and IQ tend to shoot up.

Denying this opportunity to the many

people who are vegetarians through

poverty rather than choice would

be grotesque. The United Nations

posturing about meat abstinence

sounds like “let them eat cake”.

Of course rich Western adults could

consume less meat. In the United

States, the two companies making

realistic fake meat from a mixture of

plant proteins – Impossible Foods and

Beyond Meat – have expanded to meet

growing demand. The share price of

Beyond Meat has rocketed by 700

per cent since its float in May despite

making a loss and despite the fact that

meat substitutes comprise just one per

cent of the meat market in America.

Having eaten some of these

products, I can believe they will rival

the best tasting meat. I’ve enjoyed

fake fish and chips and fake scallops

(deep-fried banana flowers for the fish,

slices of mushroom for the scallops).

It will be great having the choice

of eating vegetarian and well, even

though environmentally I may not be

doing the right thing. But the moment

somebody decides to shame or coerce

me into being a vegetarian, they will

lose my vote.

READ MORE at

telegraph.co.uk/

opinion

READ MORE at

telegraph.co.uk/

opinion

FREE RADICAL

TOM WELSH

MATT RIDLEY CAL
H

EY

DANIEL HANNANHANNAN

SUNDAY COMMENT

restaurant.” The climate is just the

latest feeble excuse for the nannies

who love to lecture us about our diet.

In an all-too-familiar progression,

what starts out as a suggestion then

becomes ostracism and ends in state

coercion. All based on a false premise.

There are other environmental

arguments against meat eating than

the fact that it generates a little more

carbon dioxide per calorie of food than

a vegetarian diet. In energy terms,

cows are about 10 per cent efficient at

turning plants into meat; chickens and

pigs more like 30 per cent. So if we ate

the plants directly, we would produce

fewer emissions and farm less land,

leaving more for nature.

But much of the plant material we

grow on arable land cannot be eaten

by human beings – straw, for example.

Plus cows, pigs and chickens turn the

indigestible stuff into manure without

which soil conservation would be

harder and organic farming all but

impossible. Prof Imke de Boer of

Wageningen University argues that

the most carbon-efficient agriculture

must include some animals.

Also, much of this planet cannot

be used for growing crops, but can

produce fodder for sheep, cattle,

goats, camels and chickens. The

hills of Scotland, Wales and the Lake

District, for example, are not suitable

for wheat, nor is much of the Middle

East and Central Asia. Without these

animals, we would not only ruin

many farming communities, but have

to plough and plant a lot more land

elsewhere to grow the protein and fats

that we otherwise get from animals –

and that would mean destroying more

forests and wetlands, because unlike

sheep and cows, those crops need

well-watered, fertile soil. Bad idea!

Then there is the health argument.

In an-all-too

familiar

progression,

what starts

out as a

suggestion

then becomes

ostracism

and ends in

state

coercion. All

based on a

false premise

VAT on

general

goods is

wrapped

into the price

displayed on

the shelves,

so many do

not notice

just how

much more

expensive the

Government

makes their

shopping

SUNDAY COMMENT

W

ho do you reckon is the most
Eurosceptic member of
the new Cabinet? Dominic
Raab? Andrea Leadsom? Boris
Johnson himself? Here’s one name
that I bet you won’t have considered:
Theresa Villiers, the Environment
Secretary.
Theresa is one of only three
members of the entire government
to have voted consistently against the
previous PM’s withdrawal terms. You
didn’t know that? I’m not surprised.
She tends to keep it to herself.
Back in 2010, as minister of state in
the transport department, Theresa’s
first act was to have the EU’s 12-star
flag removed from departmental
buildings.
I found out about her decree by
the merest chance via a civil servant.

How many politicians, I remember

wondering, would issue such an

order and not put out a press release

about it?

Theresa is polite and loyal by

temperament, but she is one of

the most determined politicians in

the field. She was not immediately

admitted to David Cameron’s

Cabinet in 2010 largely because,

when he told his shadow Cabinet

that he was dropping his “cast iron”

promise of a referendum on the

Lisbon Treaty, she spoke out most

vocally against him. Again, I heard

this from someone else present,

who had been surprised at the

way several supposedly hardline

souverainistes privately went along

with the U-turn.

Theresa has the delightful

eccentricity of doing solidly

Eurosceptic things and then not telling

anyone. She exhibits a reticence that

is quite exceptional in politicians

(and frankly unimaginable in male

politicians).

When, for example, the then-

prime minister made it obvious

that he was going to campaign for

a Remain vote, she quietly told him

that she could not support him and

was prepared to resign over the

matter. He responded by announcing

that ministers would be allowed

to campaign on either side of the

referendum – a decision that, as

much as any other, decided the result

in Leave’s favour.

For what it’s worth, she also

kept the politicians in Northern

Ireland working together for four

years, presiding over two major

cross-party agreements. The fact

that Boris has put her in charge of

the areas of policy most likely to be

affected by Brexit – agriculture and

food standards – is revealing and

encouraging.

It is sometimes said that

Eurosceptics are bombastic,

uninterested in detail, better at

talking than getting down to action.

To be fair, these things are true of

some of them. But others have made

a serious study of how the EU works,

and know exactly how to get things

done there.

Our new Prime Minister, who

went to school in Brussels and

returned there as a Telegraph

journalist, is in that category. So

are several of the people he has

brought into his ministry, especially

in the Foreign Office and the Brexit

Department. Lord Callanan, the

minister of state for Brexit – like

Theresa, a former Tory MEP – has a

surer grasp of the Brussels system

than almost any civil servant. This, in

short, is an administration designed

to deliver.

There is often, in politics, a tension

between getting something done

and being seen to get it done. That

tension was on display during the

referendum, when there were two

separate Leave campaigns – one that

was interested in making a noise,

the other in making converts to the

cause. While the supposed hard men

at Leave.EU posed and strutted and

demanded attention, Vote Leave

quietly got on with winning the

referendum in June 2016.

And now here’s the really good

news. Many of the staff from Vote

Leave have answered the call a

second time, leaving better paid

jobs in the private sector to become

advisers and officials across the

government. Why? Because they

are determined to leave the EU, and

to do so on the best possible terms.

Like Theresa Villiers, these are men

and women who care more about

getting results than about getting

credit. Boris isn’t messing about. He

means it.

Three cheers for Theresa Villiers – the unsung heroine of the Eurosceptic cause

Now the EU has lost its chance to humiliate

us, it’s time to renegotiate a deal with dignity

A

re Eurocrats, I wonder,
starting to feel the
tiniest batsqueak of
doubt? A year ago, they
had the UK where they
wanted it. Our officials
were pledging to adopt EU social and
employment laws unilaterally and to
pay for the privilege. Had any other
country made such an offer, Brussels
negotiators would have snapped
its hand off like ravening hounds.
But, still bruised by the referendum
result, they instead demanded more.
Result? A change of management
in Britain, and the sweeping away
of concessions that the previous
administration had placed on the
table.
Theresa May approached the talks
as a supplicant. The EU laid down the
terms, set the preconditions and
ordered the protocols. Every meeting
took place at the European
Commission rather than in London: a
token attempt to hold one press
conference on British soil at the
Brussels embassy was rejected out of
hand. Desperate to come back with
something that could technically be
labelled “Brexit”, the former PM
signed up to every EU request.
She accepted the EU’s sequencing,
announcing that Britain would settle
EU demands before any discussion of
trade. She agreed to pay a £39 billion
bill that no international tribunal
would uphold. She accepted – no, she
actively requested – a two-year period
where Britain would be subject to
every dot and comma of EU law,
including new rules passed during
that time, with no vote and no veto.
These acts of homage and fealty

were packaged together and offered to

the EU at the Salzburg summit last

September. Never has a sovereign

country prostrated itself in such an

undignified manner. Here was Britain

asking the EU to set its technical

standards, promising to contribute to

the military security of the continent,

swearing never to be more

competitive than its neighbours. Yanis

Varoufakis, the raffish former Greek

finance minister, called it “a deal that a

nation signs only after having been

defeated at war,” though it reminded

me more of the ultimatum issued by

Austria-Hungary to Serbia in 1914 – a

provocative demand to control the

internal affairs of another state.

Yet, incredibly, EU leaders held out

for even more. Two years of dealing

with Theresa May had convinced them

that she would talk tough but then

grovel. And so it proved. A few days

after the summit, the prime minister

wrote that Salzburg was a final,

take-it-or-leave-it offer: “Let me be

clear. Our Brexit deal is not some long

wishlist from which negotiators get to

pick and choose. It is a complete plan

with a set of outcomes that are

non-negotiable”. But it was not long

before she made yet more concessions,

offering to stay in the EU’s customs

union and, in the end, even suggesting

a second referendum.

The flaw all the way through was

that her officials were (as one of them

privately admitted to me in 2017)

unwilling to walk away. You don’t

need to be an expert in diplomacy to

understand how the other side will

respond to such a negotiating stance.

Taking no deal off the table meant, in

practice, taking Brexit off the table.

Suppose that, in 1776, the American

patriot leaders had said, “OK, we’re

leaving, but we mustn’t leave without

a deal. We will become independent

only on terms agreed by George III”.

How do you suppose that that dim and

affable monarch would have behaved?

Would he have suggested mutually

beneficial divorce terms? Of course

not. He would have done precisely as

the EU has been doing, making

deliberately harsh and unreasonable

demands in the hope that the colonists

might drop the idea of independence.

Sure enough, the EU pushed and

pushed and, shamefully, Britain

conceded and conceded. By the end,

we were reduced to taking our stand

on just one face-saving point: we

would accept the financial penalties,

the period of non-voting membership,

the one-sided acceptance of EU rules,

even the principle of the backstop

• provided it was not permanent.
  Parliament, unlike the PM, had a
  bottom line. It was not willing to swap
  an arrangement that had an exit

mechanism (EU membership) for one

that did not (the backstop).

It should have been game, set and

match to Brussels. Here was the fifth

largest economy in the world, the

second largest in Europe, offering to

become a captive market for EU

exporters, retaining the various

barriers that keep out more efficient

global rivals. Here was the country

that had twice helped to liberate the

continent volunteering for

semicolonial status. All the EU had to

do was to offer a standard break clause

of the kind contained in almost every

international treaty. But that would,

for some Eurocrats, have undone the

whole point of the withdrawal

agreement, namely that it had to be

seen to be punitive. So they dug in,

precipitating the downfall of May and

her replacement by a ministry that is

serious about walking away.

You might protest that, during the

referendum campaign, everyone

assumed that there would be an

agreed, managed withdrawal. I

certainly did: I argued before, during

and after the campaign for a Swiss-

type deal, where we would retain most

of our links to the single market while

pulling out of the EU’s political

structures. But it is now clear that

Brussels is not interested in talking

terms. It would rather risk a juddering

rupture, even when the economy of

the eurozone is delicate, than watch

Britain succeed on its own.

We can respond to such an attitude

as Theresa May did, by whining and

pleading with Brussels to be more

reasonable. Or we can react as Boris

Johnson is doing, by preparing to pivot

to the Anglosphere while remaining

open to a compromise from Brussels.

There will be a deal sooner or later.

How can there not be when the UK is

the EU’s single biggest export

destination? The question is whether

it is agreed before Oct 31, or whether

we must negotiate it from the outside.

I have never wanted a no-deal

outcome. It took a freakish

combination of Brussels intransigence,

Theresa May’s hopelessness and the

loss of a parliamentary majority to

bring us to this point. But at least it will

now be clear that neither side has any

intention of installing infrastructure at

the Irish border, and that that whole

issue was a cover for the attempt to

keep us in the customs union. We can

then negotiate on honest terms. In the

meantime, we would keep our dignity

and our democracy intact.

Two years of dealing with

May convinced the EU that

she would talk tough but

then grovel. And so it proved

Theresa May at a meeting of the European Council in 2017. The former prime minister cut a lonely figure in the Brussels negotiations

FOLLOW Daniel Hannan on Twitter

@DanielJHannan; READ MORE at

telegraph.co.uk/opinion

EPA

Brexit

Bulletin

Don’t miss our

daily Brexit

update

telegraph.co.uk/

brexitbulletin

1

РЕЛИЗ

ПОДГОТОВИЛА

ГРУППА

"What's News"

VK.COM/WSNWS

РЕЛИЗ ПОДГОТОВИЛА ГРУППА "What's News" VK.COM/WSNWS