Anti-Brussels eurocrat rebels from all corners of the House gave Mr Cameron something of a bloody nose tonight: they voted by a majority of 51 to demand a cut in the EC’s budget. However, although the main bitch of most people has been the eurocrats’ blase desire to put their budget up by 6%, not many people have talked about how big the thing is.

It is €1.3 trillion – the size of the entire UK national debt.

The latest estimate of derivative liabilities globally is in the quadrillions – at twenty times total world GDP.

Throughout our lives here in Britain, we will have 46% of everything we ever earn removed by law, and given to others who will then – if the past is any guide to the future – waste around £2 in 5 of it. To that now will be added the cost of rebuilding our financial system when the EUnami hits at some time between now and the end of 2014. And that will only be a fraction of the derived (ie completely unreal) money sitting there waiting to be made flesh around the globe. When the Americans go to the polls next Tuesday, they will have no idea what either candidate proposes to do about this UXB, for the simple reason that it hasn’t even been mentioned.

In the past, governments were forced to do something about these stored up sh*tstorms because (1) the voters were awake and (2) legislators were the undisputed sovereign power. When the trade unions challenged that in the 1980s UK, they were abruptly squashed. That hasn’t happened ‘this time’ because neither of the above points holds good any more.

The following groups come before any consideration of the citizen, and they are currently engaged in a messy fight about the sovereignty thing: banks, Whitehall, Brussels, globalist business, energy geopolitics, and fascist religions.

When business demands less government, what it means is ‘hand that power over to us’. When Brussels demands more money to run Europe, what it means is ‘hand more productive investment to us so we can waste it’. When the State Department or the FCO says ‘what’s happening in Syria is a disgrace’, what they mean is ‘let’s disappear the trouble-makers and get those wells pumping oil again’. And when Islam describes the West as ‘decadent imperialist Satans’ what it means is ‘Sharia dictatorship is the only government model we will either accept or obey’.

In the years from roughly 1926 until 1980, Western government did at least have some reasonably credible arguments about WTF it was doing with the money, for example:

“I’m modernising Russia” (Stalin), “I am getting Germany back to work and restoring its sense of esteem” (Hitler), “We’re making the world safe for democracy” (FDR and Churchill), “We’re building a Welfare State (Attlee and Bevan) “We’re putting an end to wars in Europe” (Adenauer and De Gaulle), “We’re standing up to the Communists” (JFK), and “We’re building a more modern, liberal Britain” (Wilson and Callaghan). But everything since then has been hidden agenda bollocks.

In the end, Mrs Thatcher was an employee of the City and the Civil Service – both of whom came out of her eleven-year stint very nicely thank you. Blair and Brown were bank collaborators, but employed mainly by the public service Unions, Rupert Murdoch, and George W Bush. Cameron pretty obviously worked for Newscorp at first, while offering his bottom to the bankers: but ultimately, he is employed by Whitehall, Brussels, the US State department, multinational pressure groups, the construction industry, and the private health sector. Indeed, it is because the Prime Minister has so many masters that his policy strategy lacks any coherence or goal.

Douglas Carswell’s book title The End of Politics is an interesting one, but it is flawed in one fundamental respect: we are not witnessing the end of politics, but rather the end of sovereignty. Most pundits foresee a form of international or even global technocratic governing nightmare, and I would accept that such an outcome is possible. But for me it is unlikely: as regular Sloggers know only too well, I think the future is entrepreneurial, communitarian and mutualist.

In such a context, the Civil Service would be no more, and big-budget central government a thing of the past. The State sector of the economy would cease to exist, and bourse capitalism would have an important but much smaller role. The citizen would be obliged to take more responsibility for creating productive income, and ensuring that community money is wisely spent: not an easy one this, as most people are bored by the process….but the direct, adverse effects of unwise expenditure are bound to be more obvious and irksome at local rather than national (or international) level.

Above all, the tax one paid would be related entirely to the social benefits (or anti-social costs) resulting from citizen or corporate actions. Income tax is glorified theft, and should be abolished. But a tax model encouraging and rating personal and corporate contribution to the good of the whole is reward or punishment offering a rational basis most people would find hard to deconstruct.

Of course it will be difficult to get there: if it was easy, we’d all be doing it already. But the future is not globalist mercantile competition: the future has to be local self-sufficiency with a judicious element of trade. I say ‘has to be’ not in a dictatorial sense, but merely to point up the urgency of a change in direction: because without that, we will blow ourselves up within thirty years.