It is rare at the moment to see an advocate for Remain come out openly and state that the lack of democracy is precisely what is good about the European Union. Most Remainers I encounter will bluster that there is nothing undemocratic about it, that MEPs have lots of powers, or that powers wielded by bureaucrats are okay because they are holding delegated powers, and stop moaning, shut up, etc. But Sam Bowman, of the Adam Smith Institute (broadly pro-leave as far as I know although there isn’t an official stance) has this to say from a FB posting he made the other day and which, he stresses, isn’t the official ASI view:
I like and respect many Leavers, but I’ve never shared their enthusiasm for democracy – I want liberty and prosperity, and I don’t want to trade that in just to give my stupid next-door neighbours more power over my life. To the extent that the EU does restrict democracy it is often for the best, preventing governments from doing nasty, illiberal things (like restricting immigration or subsidising domestic firms). There’s a small chance that a Jeremy Corbyn could be elected – if he is, under the British political system he would have basically unlimited power to do whatever he wants. The EU limits that power, and in my view that’s a good thing.
Of course, there are perhaps several reasons why you won’t read such a bracing critique of democracy from most Remainers. For a start, it would produce condemnation from all sides, including those on the Remain side who would be embarrassed that one of their side had spilled the beans, as it were. It is also brave to state a key issue of political theory, which is that, if you love liberty, then democracy can be as much a bug as a feature. The greatness of the United States, at least in terms of how it was conceived by the Founding Fathers, is that it is a constitutional republic, first and foremost, not a democracy. Democracy is the least-worst way we have of getting rid of governments; it is not a sure guardian of liberty, and there are examples of how democratically elected governments have trampled on property rights and other rights. Even if the UK does quit the EU – I personally suspect the Remain side will win this week – there is a real need to address how some of the checks and balances of the UK political order have been weakened dangerously by a succession of Conservative and Labour governments. The Common Law has been badly weakened and often this cannot be blamed on the evils of Brussels. We did this to ourselves. There aren’t a lot of Edward Cokes, Thomas Jeffersons, John Lockes or James Madisons on the Leave side, but we are going to need to do some clear thinking on the kind of country we want.
I personally think that Sam is wrong about the beneficial constraints, as he sees it, of the EU. It may be that some oppressive and foolish measures have been struck down by the EU, but there are also cases – such as a recent horrific example of the EU Arrest Warrant – where the illiberality of the EU is all too clear. Some dumbass British laws may have been struck down, but this is outweighed by outrages that haven’t been. The Leveson restrictions on the free UK press do not, as far as I know, face a challenge from Europe; the EU arguably is in favour of such a move. Quite a lot of the restrictions on freedom of speech in order to outlaw “hate crimes” haven’t been restricted by our being in the EU and the EU is pushing for moves in this area, in fact. Not many checks or balances there, I am afraid. I cannot think of any major “nanny state” restrictions pushed for at a UK level that have been beaten back by Brussels (I invite readers to give any cases if they exist). The regulatory upswing in the UK after the financial crisis has been made worse, not restricted, by the EU. The EU is pushing for additional layers of regulation on the City, and hasn’t as far as I know pushed in the reverse direction. In areas such as health and safety, the record of any constraint is non-existent.
Some subsidies and so on have been restricted by the Single Market, but that seems to be the main area where the EU might have been a net plus from a classical liberal point of view in keeping national lawmakers in check.
Sam’s other points are well made, but too much of it seems like he is against Leave because of that “tone” issue I mentioned the other day here. I am afraid I have long gone beyond the point where this matters to me one iota.
Addendum: Here is a nice item on James C Bennett, whom is known by some of us here, about the EU and the case for Brexit. Here is a link to his book, Time For Audacity.
Given the fundamental EU principle of the elimination of ‘discrimination’, such laws may in fact be required of its members by the EU so as to provide an effective ‘remedy’ for those affected. It is easy to imagine an EU regulation requiring such laws (if there is not one already, and the fact that there might, or might not be, and I cannot recall or tell says it all about how many laws the EU makes).
You cannot readily deduce EU law from principles, unlike the Common Law.
What a telling quote. Let’s edit it a bit for clarity:
There, now I suspect it says just what the speaker really meant.
Seems I was correct about Sam – my “assume people are guilty and that they have to continually prove their innocence ” approach to people may be horribly intolerant (it is horribly intolerant), but it is useful sometimes.
As for the E.U saving us from Mr Cobyn.
To be fair to Sam he has bought the propaganda line that the E.U. has saved Greece (and so on) from far left government – and forced a free market policy on these places.
Actually it has done nothing of the kind.
Greek government spending and taxation (as a proportion of the economy) are higher than ever.
Italy (and so on) are also marching toward a massive bust.
Counting on the E.U. to save us from leftist “Social Justice” types just does not work in practice.
As for a Constitution.
If we could have the Constitution of Texas (plus the British monarchy) I would jump at it.
But given the Constitution that Mr Corbyn (AND MR CAMERON) would give us……
No thank you.
Such a Cameron-Osborne Constitution would most likely be all about the “Living Wage” and compulsory aid to the Third World (and on and on).
It would be a bar to any real reform.
Hmm, sign error in my comment above. “give up” should read “keep”, instead.
Note to self: -(-x) = x
[Editor: fixed to what I think you mean]
Did you meant that liberty is a bug of democracy, and not a feature? That is, democracy often leads to liberty but not always. I think it is a feature to an extent, but only because for a democratic system to be stable it requires support not only from 51%, but a much higher proportion, say 75%. It then follows that democracy as such cannot be seen by some significant minority (>25%) as consistently infringing on its liberty. What is dangerous, however, is that the concept of liberty (and indeed, individual responsibility) is weaker in the minds of people than maybe it once was. This, I think, is what is behind our slow but steady march towards Huxley’s Brave New World, rather than any specific constitutional arrangement.
I would not favour the drafting of a formal constitution like they have in the US. Without a doubt there would be some idiots who wanted to include ‘a right to the NHS’ and similar things. Rather, we need to rediscover the constitution that we already have, through the principles of common law and various document such as Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights. Most importantly, Parliament must be put back in its box, and be told that sovereignty belongs with the freemen of this country.
Some work has already been done on these issues:
http://harrogateagenda.org.uk/
I agree with most of the list broadly, except for point number 6 (constitutional convention).
“It was unfortunate that the natural human activity of constructing imaginary utopias should, through various misconceptions, have been attached to a real community so little worthy of it.” Robert Conquest, describing the Sydney and Beatrice Webbs’ enthusiasm for Soviet Russia in the middle 30s. (From “The Great Terror”, quoted from memory.)
It is similarly unfortunate that Sam’s natural desire for a less intrusive government should, through his (severe!) misconceptions, have been focussed on a real supra-national government so little worthy of it.
However there is little danger that any here (or many anywhere) will be misled by his undoubtedly more-honest description of how the EU disempowers us, and presumably little hope that someone so confused will be enlightened in time to cast his single vote rightly tomorrow. As his colleagues have not managed to help him, I will not try. I think the more consciously deceitful arguments of those more typical of the remain camp are the ones to face.
PeterT: Did you meant that liberty is a bug of democracy, and not a feature? That is, democracy often leads to liberty but not always. I think it is a feature to an extent, but only because for a democratic system to be stable it requires support not only from 51%, but a much higher proportion, say 75%. It then follows that democracy as such cannot be seen by some significant minority (>25%) as consistently infringing on its liberty. What is dangerous, however, is that the concept of liberty (and indeed, individual responsibility) is weaker in the minds of people than maybe it once was. This, I think, is what is behind our slow but steady march towards Huxley’s Brave New World, rather than any specific constitutional arrangement.
The headline, I think, is clear that as far as SBowman goes, the fact that the EU allegedly constrains democracy is a “feature”, not a drawback, in his view, as this protects liberty.
I agree that a broader issue is that a large segment of the populations of Western countries are not liberal any longer in the accurate use of that word; they believe that government can and should control and deal with a large part of our lives’ concerns, and are repelled by arguments against. It might be the case that as far as attitudes to the EU, people have also become institutionalised: incapable of imagining life outside the walls of the EU, rather like a prisoner who cannot cope with life outside the gates.
I am all for constitutional systems that fetter democracy (the US systems for example), but the notion that the EU represent such a system is absurd. It is the worst off all possible systems, designed not to lock-in liberty against illiberal democratic forces, but rather to lock it out.
We nearly all know of this amusing quip. That democracy is the worst form of government: apart from all the others.
Sam Bowman needs to remember the more serious variant. For continuing adequacy of government, democracy is necessary: but not sufficient.
Best regards
The utterly stupid minimum price per unit for alcoholic drinks. The EU said it was unlawful under EU competition law. Told Scotland to think again.
On the Nanny State question posed in the post, I suspect the ScotNats being put back in their box on minimum pricing for booze has dissuaded the UK govt from pushing for it. That’s about it though.
Not merely “even if the UK does quit”, but “especially if the UK does quit” the EU.
Jonathan says
I think this is true insofar as how he meant it, but I believe membership of the EU has indeed been corrosive in this regard. A working political system needs tending. This we have not done. When gross abuse of basic rights like free speech occurs, the first thought of most activists is not to agitate for popular reform, but to bring suit in a foreign court, to overturn English law and impose a more benign outcome. Sam Bowman admits as much. Yet this is precisely how the Common Law atrophies.
Likewise with the weakness of Parliament. Parliament is supposed to be the popular bulwalk against the government. In times past, the construction of the notion of “Parlimentary sovereignty” stood in direct opposition to arbitrary rule by the King’s Ministers. And this was in a time when it was so dangerous to oppose their will that “Parliamentary sovereignty” had to be called by the nonsensical term “the sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament” so as to avoid charges of disloyalty and fear of treason.
Where do we stand now? Parliament has been totally emasculated, not by Brussels, but by the Crown (meaning, Prime Ministerial government). The guillontine rules Parliamentary discussion, MPs have all but entirely given up the power to initiate legislation, and government bribery of MPs – far from being reduced since Georgian times – has been institutionalised in the form of the “payroll vote”. I agree with Jonathan that we did these things to ourselves. But we tolerate their continuation because Parliament doesn’t much matter: because instead of agitating for Parliamentary reform it is easier to join Sam Bowman in Brussels, asking our new masters to overrule our old ones.
If we do leave the EU (and I both doubt we will vote to do, or that it will actually occur if we do vote for it on tomorrow), that will not suddenly free us from misrule. On the contrary, it will be the very first step on a process of constitutional reform, a process that has unnaturally atrophied while we have been focussed on what happens in Brussels.
Not that I approve of solar panels but Germany’s domination of the European solar panel industry would not have been possible without EU tariffs imposing a prohibitive cost on UK solar farms.
You may argue that that’s a good thing in the instance of eco lunacy but the principle certainly isn’t.
As for a new constitution it would be shaped and directed by today’s dominant ethical assumptions – the ethics of Comte and Kant and their acolytes Marx and Rawls.
That is the last thing this country needs especially when there are better alternatives available.
I happen to support the Harrogate Agenda. 13 years ago or thereabouts I realised the deepest flaw of representative democracy is the representative can act in their own self-interest or those who they secretly support or who control them. That is what we are seeing now with Cameron and many of the vote remainers.
I have to say that I understand all the arguments about the tyranny of the majority but still consider that to be preferable to a tyranny of a minority. None of us are an island and we do live in a society. As long as we all abide by the same laws, there can be no discimination or bias.
Mary, sure, some of the cause of the degradation of Common Law has been Brussels, but I’d wager that the bulk of the trouble was caused at home. We cannot blame foreigners for this, or suchlike. There are, alas, plenty of examples of how we Brits can bugger up our country without assistance. But one benefit of leaving the EU is that it will no longer be possible to use the EU as an excuse. This is a good thing in itself.
In principle, I agree with what he’s saying. I just think the EU is an awful means of getting there.
I think that Mary’s comment does the best job of getting to the heart of the matter, especially this:
and this:
Specifics may vary, but this is a common theme everywhere I know of, not just the UK – i.e. the problem of ignoring principles for the sake of expediency. Even when the expediency is for good ends, those ignored principles will always come back to bite us in the long run.
I followed the link provided to Bennett’s book and was struck by the following statement in the summary: “Many of the British people who had sincerely supported EU membership did so from the desire to see the UK magnify its impact in the world by joining together with other like-minded people.”
Is this true? The statement is both a logical and a political contradiction, and I don’t see how serious people could have thought such a thing.
As to Stuart’s point, I think one must award the US the palm for design of a representative democratic constitution, the most important part of which–the part that was designed to protect against tyranny period, whether of a majority or a minority–was a list of enumerated rights that operated like Biblical commandments: Thous Shalt Nots. Those reserved areas are today under the most intense and sustained assault ever, as our would-be tyrants see them, properly, as the only things standing between them and the utopia they would inflict on a nation of 340 million.
When it comes to constitutional orders, the kind of human rights charters drawn up every couple of years by university professors, NGOs and UN agencies are completely unsuitable substitutes, because the only correct purpose of enumerated rights removed from the reach of government is negative freedom, freedom from (from the government), Thou Shalt Nots.
It is true that the efficacy of these reserved areas can be totally undermined if enough people just decide to pretend that they do not mean what they obviously do mean, and we are seeing that now in the US, unfortunately. Not even a structure as well thought out and stable as the US constitution can survive the indifference of 300 million people whose intellectual and political horizon is bounded by Twitter, Vox and tl;dr.
What does this mean for the UK/Brexit? Well, at the very least, it means that Leave is the right decision because individual liberty and flourishing is inversely proportional to the size of the political union. Smaller polities should be preferred to larger ones. Hundreds of millions of people cannot be “represented” in any political order.
He is right up to a point, the biggest menace to Liberty today is from excessive Democracy which have been restricting Freedom and Liberty for decades.
The more things we vote about the more there are unique ways chosen so less freedom.
A Democratic vote in current state of Democracy means in most of the cases we are about to choose a unique way.
I’m not in the least surprised. The true believers have always thought this way. It’s what the “construction of Europe” is for. Back in the 1920s, Monnet and Salter saw Mussolini and thought exactly what Bowman does about Corbyn.
Yet people are often aghast when I say the EU is anti-democratic.
Of course, in restricting the freedom of the likes of Mussolini or Corbyn, perhaps Monnet, Salter, and Bowman have a point. We are worse off if people like that have the power to do whatever they wish. But the trouble, as always, is quis custodet ipsos custodes? In the EU’s case, the answer is “practically no-one”.
The founding fathers of the United States placed strict limitations on the government they initiated through the Constitution: “Congress shall make no law…”. But the EU restricts its member governments by conferring their powers on another government – the Commission – which has no such limitations. The draft Constitution, which became the Lisbon Treaty – was all about what it would do (“ensure a high level of healthcare provision”, etc.), not what it cannot. Instead of recognising that the danger lies in the power of government itself, the EU thinks it’s about who weilds it.
If we vote to remain, we are sleepwalking into great danger.
The estimable Mr. Ed
No one can not because EU “laws” are no more than Rules of Policy established in attempts to shape a desired social order and the relationships necessary for it.
LAW, as “Common Law,” e.g., describes and defines the extant, observed, sufficient commonality of the recognition, acceptance and modes of performance of obligations of members of a social order.
That is no less applicable to the “super sovereignty” of the EU than it was to the sovereignty of the English Parliament of 1772 et seq.
DEMOCRACY is a label for the processes (pl.) by which a people express their powers – it is not a condition of government or social organization; certainly not a resulting condition.
Admittedly, a particular form of those processes (kinds of voting and delegations of authority) have taken on a “definitional” characteristic; but that conviction has become seriously misleading.
The Modern European State has been vested with its current level of authority by passive acceptances as much as by active consents. Both are processes.
To continue passive acceptance of exercises and expansions of authority implies “consent,” whether or not intended.
We face that in the U S as well.
Let us recall Oliver Cromwell’s reputed speech to the Rump Parliament he dissolved, and note that this Parliament has less respect for itself than that one, which at least regarded itself as subject to no other power on Earth.
Sam wants “liberty” but not democracy.
He wants to eat his cake and still have it too.
Either Sam Bowman is not very intelligent, (correction, very unintelligent),
…or he’s evil.
Sam Duncan wrote,
Respond by asking them who the four presidents are, and if they could pick them out of a line-up.
Most Europeans wouldn’t know an EU president if they ran over them with their car, (assuming they even own a car), and most Americans don’t even understand the significance of Brussels, as in why Brussels was recently attacked by terrorists.
Hell, I’ll go as far as to say that most Americans don’t even know what the European Union is.
lucklucky wrote,
No, the menace isn’t democracy, it’s a broken system that is self-contradictory. The “freedom” to validate the restriction of freedoms of others (as well as oneself) is as self-contradictory as the supposed right to infringe on the rights of others. (Including the supposed “right” to enslave).
One cannot have the right to infringe on the rights of others because that would undermine the very concept of rights itself, even the supposed right to infringe…
Ergo we have all the rights one can possibly have and the limit isn’t arbitrary, it’s limited only by what is consistent vs what poses a self contradiction. (And all contradictions are logically false).
Likewise, we have the right to EARN, not the right to have. The supposed right to have would suggest that if we didn’t earn X ourself, then others would be obligated to supply X to us…which is slavery, which is incompatible with the concept of rights for reasons described above.
This is precicely why America’s founding documents have ‘negative freedoms’ or government restrictions as noted by QET.
But unfortunately, our government has found ways to become self-contradictory in spite of these foresights.
JohnW wrote,
Indeed, and not out of well meaning ignorance either, but out of knowing, glaring evil, by manipulative tyrants.
In today’s world, the Attilas are flesh and blood.
Paul Marks wrote,
Or as my father used to say, “yes, I’m a pessimist, but in the end I’m usually right”. LOL
50% of the time, I’m 100% right!
Thailover, I’m tempted to ask them what COREPER is, instead.
Check this out, incidentally, from its Wikipedia page:
But the EU is like, totally democratic, because Ministers.
“I don’t want to trade that in just to give my stupid next-door neighbours more power over my life.”
Precisely the position of many or most of my leftie acquaintances: democracy’s fine until someone disagrees with them, and then they want a supranational authority to ensure that the lefty view always prevails.
What happens when the supranational authority itself disagrees with them, and they find they have no way to impose lefty views even if they’re in the majority? Well, they haven’t quite faced up to that, yet.
Sam Duncan wrote,
I’m truly hoping that this point becomes merely accedemic to the Brits after the Brexit vote.
There must be a way to PEACEFULLY get rid of the government.
If that makes me a democrat (in the sense that Winston Churchill was a democrat) then so be it.
The E.U. offers no way for the people to peacefully to get rid of the government.
Sam Bowman thinks that is a good thing – and I think he is wrong, horribly wrong.
Sam Bowman also thinks that pretend democracy (where governments can be elected and voted out – but have no real power, all power really being with unelected administrators) is a good thing – again I think he is wrong, horribly wrong.
I can not think of something more likely to create violent rage in the people than allowing them to vote for a government and then telling them “oh and it can not restrict immigration” and on and on.
I do not know if Sam Bowman has been to the Syrian border – but I have, and allowing the Islamists to come here would be an act of insane folly.
As for “not subsidise ….” – the E.U. likes subsidies as long as THE E.U. GETS TO DECIDE WHO GETS THE SUBSIDIES.
So do not play the “the E.U. is against subsidies” game Sam.
I must also apologise to J.P.
I assumed that we would lose – but we did not lose.
Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne will not be writing a feature Constitution of Britain.
Goodbye Mr Cameron and goodbye Mr Osborne.
Every day you both stay in office is a day too long.