Building Bridges in Texas

Roger USA

In the (replica) Oval Office at the George W. Bush Presidential Centre in Dallas

I’ve been working with the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) on and off for ten years or so.  I was introduced to ALEC by my former staffer Sally McNamara, who went out to intern with them in the summer of 2004 (after the euro-election), and stayed for several years before moving on to The Heritage Foundation and eventually to the private sector.

ALEC is a national association of US state legislators, boasting many hundreds of members.  It is committed to free markets, limited government, and federalism.  I need scarcely explain to my educated and enlightened readership that in the USA, “federalism” means almost the exact opposite of the European usage.  Here, it means the constant accretion of powers by Brussels from the member-states.

In the US, however, it means the reverse: that powers not constitutionally assigned to the federal government remain with the States.  As Wikipedia – you can read here – puts it, “The Tenth Amendment states the Constitution’s principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or the people”.

This is closer to the EU’s principle of “subsidiarity”, which is often talked about but never given effect.

ALEC has been criticised because it cooperates with, and is partly funded by, the private sector.  This criticism sits comfortably with the anti-lobbying hysteria which we see in Brussels.  Both are misplaced.

Let’s stand back and think about it.  The private sector creates wealth, growth and prosperity.  It creates jobs.  It pays wages, and pensions.  It also pays the taxes that fund our schools and hospitals and other public services.  This is not about “them”.  It’s about all of us.  If the economy does well, and the private sector does well, we all benefit.  If the private sector bombs, and the economy tanks, we all suffer.

There was an unhelpful prejudice in the 70’s which saw workers and industry as in constant conflict.  But it’s not a zero-sum game.  Success and prosperity for all depend in the end on the co-operation of industry, capital and labour, and I believe that today, that proposition is better understood.

As legislators, I and my colleagues are constantly passing laws and regulations that impact directly on businesses and jobs.  It seems to me that we have not merely a right, but also a duty, to talk to those who will be impacted by our legislation, to understand their concerns, and so far as possible avoid doing more damage than we need to.  I make no apologies for talking to businesses.  Indeed I do it rather a lot.  While in Texas, and in pursuit of my energy brief, I made a point of driving out to Glen Rose, to see the Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Station . And we looked at a number of shale gas sites on the way there.  Texas is neatly placed on the Barnett Shale Basin.

At Comanche Peak

At Comanche Peak

Of course by now the usual suspects will be demanding to know who paid for my US visit.  So I’ll tell you.  Most of the cost was covered by the standard annual €4,200 allowance for MEPs for foreign travel.  Why do I feel justified in spending this money?  Because if I don’t use it, it doesn’t revert to the tax-payer.  It just goes straight back into the parliament pot, and most likely goes to fund the federalists.  Better that I should use it to promote UKIP values than let the EPP use it to drive (EU) federalism.  The allowance didn’t cover the whole cost, so I also contributed myself.

One of my pet internet trolls asked “When are you going to do some work?”.  Personally I think that working to support and strengthen our transatlantic ties with the UK’s greatest ally is an essential part of my work, as is following and debating energy and other issues with American colleagues.

And that’s what I was doing.  In addition to visiting Comanche Peak, I spoke to ALEC’s International Relations Task Force about developments in Britain and the EU; the rise of UKIP at home and a euro-critical tendency in many member-states.  I also talked about the economic damage that EU energy policy is doing in Europe, and urged the US not to go down that route.  President Obama has had difficulty in getting anti-growth “green” policies through Congress, so he’s hit on the idea of by-passing Congress and driving through draconian restrictions via the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency –  By designating CO2 “a pollutant” (of course it’s no such thing) they can bring in harsh, job-destroying restrictions without any democratic mandate or legitimacy.  For what it’s worth, I see this as a real threat to freedom in the USA, and an abuse of process.

Over three days we debated a huge range of issues.  Another one which relates directly to my energy brief is the move to relax US export restrictions on fossil fuels.  The industry is keen to see this happen, not least to bolster gas prices.  And given the Ukraine crisis, European governments are very keen indeed to find new sources of gas.  Opponents of shale gas are salivating at the news that the US industry is facing profitability problems.  They seem blissfully unaware that this is, in a sense, a measure of success.  There is so much gas out there that US prices are down.  If the US industry had access to international markets, and international prices, it would be hugely profitable.

Right now we’re in our summer parliamentary recess, so I guess I could have spent last week on a beach somewhere.  But I suspect that Dallas was both more fun, and a better use of my time.


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Building Bridges in Texas

  1. Brin jenkins says:

    The same technique has been used to promote Statins. Without cholesterol cells will not reproduce, digestion will not work and no link to blocked arteries and cholesterol has ever been established. Statins Kill and make cripples of normal people.

    I believed the arguments although the CO2 Climate Change had been blown out of the water.

    Junk science is supreme in official circles.

    • Roger Helmer MEP says:

      Grateful for your support, Brin. But I’m not entirely convinced by your argument on statins. I’ve been on them for twenty years, and I’m not aware of any negative side-effects. I agree that cholesterol is natural and indeed essential, but statins don’t eliminate cholesterol — they merely help to control the level.

  2. Mike Stallard says:

    Texas – the blood-red, beating heart of America! The Lone Star State! WOW!

    What worries me is the way that while they are fracking away like mad, we are held down by the Greenies who themselves seem to do an awful lot (secret of course) of lobbying in Brussels with the money which naive people give them for charity work. Tell me I am wrong.

    For the record: I call this work. Well done for highlighting where we in Europe ought to be looking- and are most certainly not heading.

    • Roger Helmer MEP says:

      I worry less about the money given to “green” NGOs by naive people, and more about our taxpayers’ money given to them by the European Commission!

    • Roger Helmer MEP says:

      The European parliament budget exists. It will be spent. You cannot disinvent it — at least until we leave the EU (which UKIP is seeking to do). So while it exists, would you like it ALL spent on promoting European integration, or would you like a small proportion spent opposing European integration — and all the other nonsense?

  3. Right wingery says:

    Plus you can’t claim your expenses from the beach….

    • Roger Helmer MEP says:

      I could have had a week on the beach for less than a week in Dallas cost me — even allowing for the expenses. What is it about you guys? Everyone who has a serious job expects to receive necessary work expenses as part of the package. I worked in industry for thirty-odd years, and no one ever criticised me for claiming expenses. Why would you expect different rules to apply to politicians? I agree that we could save tax-payers money by leaving the EU and having no MEPs at all — and I am working to that objective — but as long as I’m doing the job, I am entitled to be reimbursed for it.

      • Right wingery says:

        I guess the difference is that in private business you spend your shareholders/owners money. Whilst in public office you spend my money, and quite occasionally I resent it. I cannot see how you getting a photo for your album sat on the GWB Oval Office replica is furthering EU/US relations.

        I do like the UKIP mentality though: “spend the money or else someone else will get it”. Sounds very Establishment to me.

        Still kudos for using some of your own money. Is there a way in which we taxpayers can audit this? I would, for example, like to know just how much you spent to make the cost shortfall from the e4,200 budget?

        Also, did you fly economy, business or first class?

      • catalanbrian says:

        I am not convinced that a week in Dallas meeting with representatives of an association of “conservative” US legislators, which despite its name, has nothing to do with government or any US authority, represents good value for money for the EU taxpayer, of which I am one. Further I really wonder whether using EU funds to promote UKIP values should be allowed under the EU rules. Surely UKIP membership should be providing funds to promote UKIP and its values, not the EU taxpayer.

      • ian wragg says:

        It’s not that we begrudge you Roger, its the lack of a level playing field. After 4000 miles my allowance drops from 45p to 27 yet a politicians doesn’t.
        The taxman expects a receipt for every small detail claimed but MEP’s and MP’s don’t have this hassle. One rule for all methinks.

  4. Ex-expat Colin says:

    Hand wrining alert…expenses!

    • Ex-expat Colin says:

      try wringing….need a beer I think!

      • Roger Helmer MEP says:

        Ian — Different organisations have different expenses rules. My expenses for foreign trips stop at €4200 each year. You’re quite wrong about receipts — the parliament administration is obsessive to the point of paranoia on receipts for travel expenses.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s