Osborne, Cameron, Enterprise Zones and Charter Cities.

David Osborne has spoken in the last few days about his desire to "boost growth" [1]

He states the budget will be "pro-growth, pro-business and pro-aspiration", looking at tackling planning and red tape.

David Cameron has also spoken over the weekend about removing bureaucracy, regulations and red tape from business.

The problem for both of them is that they are not masters of all that they survey. They have no right to roam, but must stay on the EU footpath and if that footpath takes them in the wrong direction, then tough. The EU ultimately decides what regulations, what reels of red tape are imposed, when and where [2]. Cameron and Osborne are posturing, but have no real power to change things in a meaningful way [3].

These zones appear to be the normal tired affair of planning tweaks and regeneration which, I suspect, will benefit certain construction companies and vested interests but will it really create wealth? I stop for a moment to point out that "growth" is not the same as "wealth" [4].

If the Government is serious about wealth, it should seriously consider getting out of the way.

To get out of the way properly, the government must clear up the mess it has created, the inertia, economic rubble and regulatory tank traps that litter the landscape.

I propose that the Government found one or more Charter Cities [5]. These are independent cities free of the legal and regulatory interference that exists in the host nation. They could be seen as, in effect, potential new Hong Kongs [6].

Charter Cities would draw in people, create demand, wealth and a hinterland. The issue the UK has is to find a suitable location to establish such a place. Charter Cities really do need unhindered access to the sea for trade and the estimation is that 1000sq. km is needed for a fully viable, independent self-powering and watering entity. That figure sounds massive, but is only around 20 miles x 20 miles [7]. One could select an existing city but the issue of dealing with the existing inertia, people and property will be a challenge and almost certainly will violate Rule of Law.

Better to establish the right to form a Charter City and let those currently owning the land - not the "local authority", for they own little and should NOT be granted compulsory purchase powers - realise the value and instantiate it amongst themselves or sell up to those who do. Yes, it will result in some odd situations and corridors as individual land owners reject the terms [8] and may even result in the creation of artificial islands off the coast, more akin to Seasteading, which should also be accommodated in any legislation.

They key will be to ensure the autonomy of the Charter City from local laws and to ensure that it is not threatened by kleptocratic tendencies once it becomes successful.

Could the Charter City concept operate on a smaller scale? I do have my doubts. Hong Kong could not supply itself with water and power and so was always at the mercy of the Mainland. I would not wish to see a Charter City put at the mercy of a hostile/parasitic "host" government who wishes to interfere, but if the concept could be made to work, as in multi-century work, on a smaller scale then we might have a hope in the UK.

All the half-hearted measures we hear of are more about pork-barrelling and posturing than true wealth creation. Control is always there and such measures can end up making things worse [9].

Looking at the big picture, the very concept of Charter Cities could be the solution regardless of where they are established.

Britons can relocate to Charter Cities as they did to colonies and concessions in the past. People who would have come to the UK can go to these new Cities and almost certainly have a better life (and better weather, I suspect!). In the long run these places will be good for Mankind and as a result we should work towards removing barriers to their formation.


[1] Osborne also spoke about not doing something - raising a tax on fuel. Of course, he cannot drop fuel duty in a meaningful way or tinker with the way VAT is applied because he is no longer the Chancellor of a sovereign nation, but a Finance Manager of a regional office with a reporting line to his bosses in Brussels. Oh, and he also reports locally to the de facto Town Clerk of Britain, David Cameron.

[2] If the EU limited its regulations to cross-border operations, then domestic productivity, being around 80% of all activity, could operate unmolested and the sovereignty of Nation States would also be unmolested. Exporters must expect to deal with such hurdles and decide if a market is worth the disruption.

[3] It is sad to see. Sad that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Irelend has no real power to get the government they represent off the backs of those who create wealth in this country. He has made a rod for his own back, but I have no sorrow for David Cameron, but I do over the post he holds and all that that implies for us, for in so doing he has made a whip for us all. Had he stuck to his promise of a referendum on membership of the EU - which would the the real outcome of a vote on the Lisbon Treaty - then we would be well on the way to resolving this and restoring sovereignty that has been, IMHO, illegitimately handed over to a foreign power.

[4] All too often, "growth" is really "inflation" in which a minority can grab wealth by being higher up the chain than the majority.

[5] I came across the organisation Charter Cities after I had come to my own, parallel conclusions that mirror many of the features of Charter Cities.

[6] I have lived in Hong Kong and I can say that I felt freer there with no vote than when I returned in 2001 to Blair's New Labour Britain and universal suffrage and "democracy". Hong Kong is a vibrant, safe, optimistic and entrepreneurial place and I would move back there in a heartbeat. The actions of one the most famous Hong Kong administrators, John James Cowperthwaite, KBE, CMG, are a significant factor in "positive non-interventionism" that many believe was fundamental for the scale of wealth creation in Hong Kong.

[7] I do wonder that the biggest obstacle will be concern about wading birds or similar.

[8] We most certainly do NOT wish to see Trump-style bullying of individuals who might wish to retain their property.

[9] When they say they want to remove control, they really mean they want to shift control from one place to another. Removing regulations tends to be followed by a new body deciding who can and cannot be involved. Process is replaced by the arbitrary. As with the Big Society, this is an open door to corruption and so must be viewed with great suspicion.