UKIP has a libertarian wing (that DK used to be part of), but it also has rapid xenophobes who will both refuse to recognise Cornish nationhood but refuse to accept more than one tier of Govt, which has to be Westminster.

Meh. My only real problem with Cornish nationalism, as a Devon lad of Dumnonian stock, is the way Devon gets ignored–what about, for example, the 4 Devon stannary towns? We had to put up with English occupation for centuries, doesn’t mean we aren’t closely linked ;-)

Don’t know what to make of that. As a Cornish nationalist I wish to see power devolved to a Cornish layer of government as well as full recognition of Cornwall’s national identity, but equally I’m an ardent supporter of federalism on a European and, yes, global scale.

I also have nothing against freedom and individualism. Quite the contrary.

This may not sound like a constructive contribution to the discussion, but I do think it’s an important observation of the blogosphere. Banning the burka, general hanging and flogging, incarceration without trial, the Swiss minaret ban, torture, phone-tapping – I’ll find you any number of ‘libertarians’ who support a whole raft of policies which are fundamentally opposed to any sane interpretation of libertarianism.

Basically the word “libertarian”, which properly applies to an eccentric and minority fundamentalism, has been co-opted by your bog-standard right-wing headbanger.

What’s surprising is that the few genuine libertarians don’t seem to mind – or even have noticed. I guess anything to bolster their numbers. And perhaps they sing from the same page often enough to make it worthwhile…

Or, at least, a minister attended the Council of Ministers and approved that specific bit of legislation on our behalf. In secret, of course, behind closed doors. The EU does in theory practice subsidiarity, but because of the secretive nature of decision making, frequently ministers agree to stuff in the Council that they know they could never pass domestically.

Of course, under Lisbon, meetings have to be in the open, and scrutiny powers for both the EU and national parliaments are increased.

This, theoretically, should lead to an improvement. The problem is, of course, that it’ll be harder to see, as the amount of crap is likely to be reduced before proposal stage as they’ll know what can’t be agreed to publicly, etc.

The reason a lot of people care about if a small country wants a silly rule is fairly straightforward; trade.

When I worked for a major UK exporter, they were effectively forced to follow the strictest rules for their products across the area they were trading in, and due to scale concerns, these strict restrictions were applied even in UK domestic market products, they couldn’t afford to make two different versions.

A single market rule means that if it’s legal in one country it’s legal in all, thus decreasing business costs, but at the expense of subsidiarity.

The free trader in me wars with the localist on that one, but TBH, the bit of me that liked that job and wants to see the company continue to do well tends to win…

Subsidiarity is necessacry to be libertarian, but it is not sufficient. Libertarians want as much as possible decided by the individual, as well as having those few descisions that really do need to be made collectively made as close to the individual as possible.

The EU fails the test of deciding things as close to the individual as possible, because its one size fits all nature will by default try to suck power upwards to its own remote level. It also fails the test of keeping as much power exercised by the individual as possible by the way it regularly seeks to regulate on areas do not need to be regulated. If two people decide amongst themselves to make a deal for rope measured fathoms, and another pair want to deal in millimeters what business is it of the state to interfere? So long as everybody involved understood their deal then it is nobody else’s business.

Likewise if the population one country decides that some petty rule is needed there and another decides it is not, then why should one care about what goes on in the other? Wanting a small government is not about wanting a small government in the abstrate when the total length of the tax codes of all governments is calculated across the entire globe. It about wanting the maximum freedom for each individual, whilst also being safe from coercion by force of fraud.

Perhaps the UK Libertarian Party should rename itself the UK Localist Party, DK?

The point of legislating at an EU level for driving/motorbike licenses is to ensure that the people of Europe can freely travel throughout the EU in the confidence that all other road users are trained to the same standard. This again conforms to Mill’s harm principle – because a) poor driving is one of the biggest killers going, and b) any lack of harmonisation in driving license standards might restrict an individual’s freedom to travel.

There is, of course, a strong argument that this shouldn’t have applied to the UK as we 1) drive on the left, 2) use miles per hour not kilometers, and 3) are not part of the Schengen Zone. But – as pointed out above – those are all arguments for the UK to have pushed for an opt-out from this particular part of the EU, not against the basic principle.

Ignoring Subsidiarity would be bad in itself, but there is also the prinicple of the occupied field which has been erroding the areas that lower levels of government can operate. The flow of power is towards the centre, and away from the citizen. Anybody that wants power weilded as close to individual as possible, as Libertarians do, should therefore not support the EU, the way most Libertarians don’t.

Blame British lobbyists and your elected officials for being lame and not active enough to represent your interests in Brussels. Don’t blame the EU.