So, how much are MPs intending to pay for these golden shares?

Certain MPs are suggesting that golden shares should be acquired in British defence companies:

Britain must take 'golden share' in defence firms like Meggitt, say MPs

Chairman of defence select committee says the FTSE 250 firm should be protected from foreign takeovers in same way as BAE and Rolls-Royce

So mateys, how much are you going to pay for those golden shares?

The Government should take "golden shares" in defence companies critical to UK national security such as Meggitt to stop them falling to foreign predators, MPs on the Defence select committee have said.

The call comes as concern mounts about the £6.5bn takeover of the FTSE 250 company by US rival Parker Hannifin.

Tobais Ellwood, the committee chairman, called for an expansion of the system in which the Government holds a controlling share that can be used to block takeovers.

What’s the price?

This is clearly what the Americans call a “taking”, something that their constitution says is illegal without market value compensation. The entire point of the exercise is to be such a taking:

On Monday US-based Parker revealed an 800p a share offer for Meggitt, which supplies parts for both military and civil aircraft.

Its board recommended the all-cash offer, which is at 71pc premium. The chairman, Sir Nigel Rudd, said he was confident Parker would be a “responsible steward of Meggitt”.

It is to stop that sort of thing. Johnny Foreigner giving lots of money to the current owners of the business. The aim of the golden share is to stop those owners receiving that lots of money. The taking is the lots of money they will not receive.

Now, yes, strange things can righteously be done in the name of national security. And while we don’t have that constitutional ban on uncompensated takings we do indeed have laws that insist that nationalisations and the like be compensated at market price.

So, what’s the price that is going to be paid for these golden shares? Not to have one is simply the confiscation of some part of the wealth of those current owners.

The Government only has golden shares in BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce,

Those golden shares existed at the time of privatisation. The price at which they were sold included the effects of the golden share that is. This new demand is to impose the restrictions on already private companies. Which is a confiscation of some of the value - so, how much will be paid for that confiscation?

By the way, we do have a word for uncompensated takings - theft.

Whether or not there should be golden shares isn’t the issue here. As above, strange things can righteously be done in the name of national security. But ownership of something does, in its very definition, mean being able to dispose of it as one wishes. That right, that valuable right, is to be taken away. Foreigners bearing baskets of money may not buy these companies - the reduction in the value of those companies is the excess cash those foreigners would be willing to pay but now cannot. This is, obviously enough, the reduction in value of the company to the current owners.

The suggestion, nay insistence, is that government should confiscate some measure of private property. Well, OK, national security and all that. But how much is to be paid for that private property being confiscated?

If they take your house to build a railway they can do that, but they must pay you market value for the house when they do so. Compulsory purchase does exist and it’s right that it does. But it always, but always, involves market value compensation.

Perhaps we should put this to Mr. Ellwood in a slightly different manner. Have you cleared this with Rishi yet, asked him for the money?