Although the Blair government has needed little encouragement from the European Union to destroy our civil liberties and impose ever more layers of political control over our lives, it seems he has decided to try and lock a few more controls at the more remote European level.
And will a future Cameron government undo what Blair has wrought? Do not make me laugh. As Dave Cameron even attempted to back out of his pre-leadership promise to take the token action of removing the ‘Conservatives’ from the integrationist EPP grouping in the European ‘parliament’ (and the Conservatives MEPs are still in a de facto coalition with the EPP), clearly he lacks the inclination to do anything of actual substance.
Clearly the only way to undo what Blair has wrought in Brussels is to just start ripping up treaties or better yet get out of the EU altogether… and that is not going to happen under any foreseeable UK government. Nothing short of a social earthquake that radically shifts the political landscape is going to make much difference and that ain’t going to happen under any likely government I can foresee.
Isn’t avoidance of political earthquakes generally a good thing?
Maybe us plebs need to see up a concilium plebis to protect us from the excesses of the new patrician class in both parliment and the Eu.
No.
I don’t really see why you retain political parties in the U.K.; they don’t really have anything to do.
So why not have a referendum on abolishing the Labour Party, the Conservative Party, the Liberal Democrats and the whole lot of them, their miserable councils and make-work organizations on the grounds that they’re just useless strutting clutter?
If they’re out of date, why keep them around?
All they do is maintain the illusion that you’re run by your own country.
So why not have a referendum on abolishing the Labour Party, the Conservative Party, the Liberal Democrats and the whole lot of them
Because one of the beauties of the Westminster Parliament was the idea that MPs represented their constituents, not the parties. Parties existed, but had no constitutional relevance, not being set up, controlled or other authorised by the state.
With the imminent introduction of formal state funding for political parties the last remnants of that actuality will be finally laid to rest, but I would like to maintain the fantasy, to retain the possibility that the reality could one day be reinstated.
In other words, your vote on the matter is of no relevance when I decide who I associate with, politically or otherwise.
Chris Harper,
Well, yes. It’s amazing how quickly we forget these things.
Perry,
Great two-letter rebuttal.
If only people started to wake-up and realize the EU and is not inevitable and that we’ve just been told it is for so long we’ve forgot there is an alternative.
Well, here’s mine. The EU imposes upon the continent complete and absolute free movement of goods, people and capital, says “job done” and dissolves itself. I mean why not? wasn’t that the original aim? Of course there’d be no more expense account lunches in the finest brasseries of Brussels and no more public funding for Mandy dancing to YMCA but I suspect we could live with that.
It is interesting that Gordon Brown is being cast as on the side of the heroes here, allegedly being instrumental in forcing Blair to stand up against changing the fundamental economic principle of the single market into a “social market economy”.
Interesting, too, that that move was being pushed by Sarkozy, whom many in Europe have described as a “Thatcherite”, and even some here have suggested might be good for France.
That sounds a bit like the European Economic Area (EEA). Since this arrangement already exists, why shouldn’t Britain leave the EU and join the EEA? In terms of European integration it would then be in a similar position to Norway now.
That might be a declaration of faith, but alas it is not an argument or even a polemic.
Well, for a start one of the governing parties would have to hold a referendum on ending the party system. Given they would be the beneficiaries of it (being in power) that seems as unlikely as holding one on proportional representation, which is only championed by the Lib Dems who don’t look likely to win an election.
Secondly, Matthew Parris wrote a decent piece in The Times the other day that put the case for political parties. He argued that essentially they created extra levels of competition and cut-throatness which would result in better policies coming to the fore. Sadly it doesn’t seem to do more than encourage sitting on the center ground right now, which obviously is ground libertarians don’t like. Are there any democracies without party political systems that it can be compared to? I don’t know how you’d make one work.
Well, it’s plausible that the poor polling by the UMP which didn’t leave Sarkozy with much of a mandate was responsible and that this is a sop to get more Socialist MPs on his side, and if the UMP had more seats it wouldn’t have happened. He himself doesn’t necessarily want a social market or immediately intend to start propping up French industry. It’s the risk that future French politicians will abuse the re-write.
Haven’t they found a farewell fanfare for him yet? The opening choon to his “Presidency” was “Things can only get better”, oh my!
How about a new version of Europe’s “Final Climbdown” as a parting refrain?
Red Lines = Maginot Lines.
According to what I read into the report by Open Europe, the EU will have sovereignty in all but name. Red lines will be bypassed, ineffective, symbolic tide-pools.
The EU is setting itself up to be an autocratic State with one party view and just cosmetic factions fighting over votes. The fact that the Commission will not have all countries represented all of the time and that pan-European political parties will be the only ones “permitted” means nations are dead.
The UK should leave the EU now. Tony Blair in the Tower for treason.
I am no joking.
Blair’s final betrayal of the UK electorate – and the democratic process – The new EU constitution is backing away from free trade and moving further towards a Super State. All very thinly disguised as a so-called ‘treaty’. He has signed up to it with absolutely no mandate and is arguing one is not needed.
Much of this so-called ‘treaty’ has already been rejected. It has no legitimate mandate and is so far reaching it needs a specific endorsement from the electorate. Without such an endorsement it should never expect any acceptance or support from the people of the UK.
The European political elite behaves as if they were Kings and Princes of Europe, entitled to make treaties on their own recognisance.
Tony Blair appears to share this view. How dare they?
We are not their subjects, they are our servants, elected to represent our views and guard our rights.
TimC: “Tony Blair in the Tower for treason.”
This would be great but why pick on him? All our supposed “leaders” have been complicit in this betrayal of our heritage and rights and thus should all go to the Tower. I suspect though it would get pretty crowded and some sort of Health and Safety rules must surely apply if it happened.
Because one of the beauties of the Westminster Parliament was the idea that MPs represented their constituents, not the parties. Parties existed, but had no constitutional relevance, not being set up, controlled or other authorised by the state
I suppose the question I wanted to ask was, if these people represent you, why are you unable to put any fear into them? If they are your servants, why can’t you give them instructions, orders, warnings? Why, in other words, have you no power over them?
For example, you say your MPs represent you, but then why don’t you elect representatives that will check, oppose, or at least object to actions the Prime Minister takes when he so clearly violates the public trust? And if they can’t do that, then how do they represent you? And if they don’t represent you, why don’t you throw them out? You say what follows them will be as bad? But how does this happen if you elect them? So if you keep getting representatives that aren’t worth anything, isn’t that the fault of the electors?
I am sure, from my distance, to be overlooking something obvious, but it seems to me that the problem is the public. Is it against the law over there for ordinary citizens to form advocacy groups to inform others, promote your cause, and elect the officials you want?
But how does this happen if you elect them?
Because we don’t. Their parties select them, and will de-select them if they show much independence. Our rational choice in the British system is to vote against the party we like least by backing its main opponent in the constituency in question.
Almost no-one gets into parliament with a distinctive political position. And almost no-one is elected in a competitive race because the electorate likes and supports them personally. In the majority of seats there isn’t a competitive race, but this gives the parties, not the representatives, security.
Vote Saxon.
Nothing short of a social earthquake that radically shifts the political landscape is going to make much difference
How about the collaspe of the Euro. From how badly the Euro area did during the deflation of the dot com bubble this probably won’t take much.
There are large house price bubbles in Spain and Ireland, with the Eastern European states also looking a bit frothy. Italy has about a decade of depression ahead of it to regain competitiveness against Germany, instead of the normal pre-Euro currency devaluation. France is, well, socialist. Everybody in the EU is looking at very large pensions bills, a problem that is only going to get harder to solve the longer it is left unsolved. That is just the obvious internal problems. There is a stock market bubble inflating in China, which together with its bankrupt banking sector and continuation of the unprofitable state owned businesses is cause for worry. Or Iran could try to blackmail the west (he would be crazy enough to do it) over the Straits of Hormuz creating an oil price spike. A crisis with any one of these could trigger a major asymetric shock which could, with luck, pull the Euro area apart. Once the Euro is gone the EU will soon follow.
On the free undistorted competition thing – from 1957 onwards:
This is good if it means “no government subsidies” (although that does not seem to get applied to “Airbus” or to…..)
But it is not fine if it is used as an excuse for “anti trust” or “competition policy” following the false “perfect cometition” conception of neoclassical economics.
I am told that, in some ways, E.U. “competition policy” is becomming even more absurd that that of the United States.
It is irritating that the E.U. (which bills itself, however oddly, as a rival to the United States) insists on copying the worst things about the United States (anti trust anti “discrimination”, anti ……) whilst (of course) ignoring the good things.
On David Cameron:
The first thing Mr Cameron did was to drop the Conservative party objective of regaining control over fishing policy, and to forbid a campaign for the return of ANY POWER AT ALL from the E.U.
Mr Cameron is a terrible leader of the Conservative party.
I am told that the more evil extremists such as myself attack Mr Cameron the better pleased he is. But what I think he and his supporters miss is that whilst I am an extremist (although whether I am evil or not is for others to judge) the vast majority of potential voters agree with me about the direction of policy (even though they might not go as far as I would).
For example, potential Conservative voters want a smaller government (both as a percentage of the economy – the only way to get lower taxes, and in terms of regulations). And, of course, potential Conservative voters want a return of powers from the E.U. (indeed they want a return of ALL powers from the E.U. – in short, on this, they are as “extreme” as I am).
I say “potential” Conservative voters as I do not know why they should vote for a Conservative party led by Mr Cameron.
I have a Dutch Friend who’s hope is that when this happens (when, not if), it is not a violent event but a peaceful change to multilateral co-operation between sovereign states. His (and my) fear is that the end of the Euro will inevitably be accompanied by high unemployment and/or inflation and this could lead to civil unrest throughout the EU. How serious this may become, only time will tell, but “very” is a plausible option.
To see something not far short of civil war will finally lay to rest the lie that the EU has brought peace to Europe, but that will not be a very attractive piece of schadenfreud (I will still indulge – I’m not a very attractive person). I suspect the EU apparatchniks will never accept their responsibility for it though.
I too hope that the EU’s collapse will be as non-violent as possible, which is why I hope it happens soon. Large scale unemployment in unfortunately inevitable on account of most of the Euro area being in some way socialist, and rioting is very possible. What I worry about is the EU having gained control of foreign policy and having an army before the collapse. The eurocrats won’t feel much compulsion against turing their guns on the unarmed populations in order to preserve their utopia.
@pietr
Yes quite, but unfortunately there is no hero in a blue box coming to our aid. This isn’t something you can fix with a sonic screwdriver.
@Anthony and Guy
I’ve said this before. MP’s don’t currently represent the views of the people. They react to what they are told the people’s views are by the media and otherwise follow the party line, if they don’t they are out on their ear. We may vote for them but we have no control over them.
@MarkE and Chris Strange
The collapse of the current system is not going to be pretty, its going to be violent, bloody and destructive. The scariest thing is that there are no guarantees that what we get on the other side of the collapse will be any better, its more than likely going to be worse.
Doctor Who?
No.
I said Saxon and I meant Saxon.
Trouble is his policies are a load of balls too.