By Brian Barder / @BrianLB
In an eloquent article on Our Kingdom, David Marquand, the academic, former Labour MP and later chief adviser (1977-78) to Roy Jenkins as President of the European Commission, laments that the Britain he’s proud of, the Britain that “stood alone against Nazi Germany for twelve long months”, that welcomed foreign exiles and was a beacon of free speech and peaceful protest, no longer exists. Despite having consistently supported UK membership of the European Union, Mr Marquand is:
"now getting more and more favourable to a referendum – not on the Lisbon Treaty, which is a side issue, but on the one question that really matters: in or out? I’m pretty sure that the Europhobes would lose, just as they did in 1975, but even if they won there would be a silver lining. British secession from the EU would be a disaster for Britain, but it would be a good thing for Europe. Its progress towards federalism would still be slow and halting, but at least the UK would no longer be there, throwing spanners in the works at every opportunity. And – a bigger bonus – the UK would probably break up. Scotland and (probably) Wales would not want to leave their continent, even if England did. I’ve always been against the break-up of Britain, championed so brilliantly by Tom Nairn, but I’m increasingly coming to feel that it offers Wales, where I was born, and Scotland, where both my grandmothers were born, their best hope of escape from the deadly UK mixture of authoritarian illiberalism, gross inequality and small-minded insularity."
It’s a tempting idea, but the temptation needs to be resisted: unless it’s a rhetorical trope, it’s a death wish. I have posted this comment on David Marquand’s article:
“I’m proud to be European as well as British and English and a Londoner. It’s obvious to me that Britain’s future lies either in Europe or else in rapid decline and obscurity. The ravings of the Europhobes are incomprehensible: why should anyone take seriously the paranoid xenophobic lies of the Sun, the Murdoch press and the Conservative party? The prospect of at least five and possibly ten years of a Tory government under Cameron and Hague, oscillating between Europhobia and Euroscepticism, constantly dragging its feet in Brussels, constantly whingeing about wanting to claw back its ‘right’ to treat British workers worse than anyone else in Europe, constantly trying to extract petty chauvinist advantage by blackmailing our European partners with the threat of an obstructive veto, constantly blaming every national failure on Europe, constantly undermining our standing in Washington and the rest of the world by puerile displays of vindictiveness and disloyalty in Brussels — doesn’t that prospect depress you?
“If it does, then I can see how the idea of an In/Out referendum, almost certainly in my view resulting in the UK’s withdrawal (or expulsion) from the European Union (”It was The Sun Wot Won It“), might have a kind of masochistic attraction. As Marquand rightly says, it would be a disaster for Britain. If it led to the disintegration of the United Kingdom, with Scotland and perhaps Wales seceding and rejoining the EU, (and Northern Ireland probably joining the Republic of Ireland), leaving England to sink without trace, it would be not just a disaster but a catastrophe. But the luxury of being able to tell the swivel-eyed Europhobes and Eurosceptics that it served them right, and would teach them a salutary lesson, would be pitifully small compensation for seeing our once proud country swirl relentlessly down the drain.
“If we must have a referendum on UK membership of the EU, let it be preceded by a period of several years in which an enlightened British government awakens from its torpor and starts to play an active and constructive role in Europe, not fatuously claiming a “leadership” role (who else in Europe these days accepts Britain as a leader?) but engaging seriously and whole-heartedly with the French and the Germans and the Poles and Spanish to put yet more flesh on the bones of the great European idea, to develop its benign identity in world affairs and to help it to play as effective a role in tackling the world’s horrendous problems as the United States, Russia, India, China and Brazil. Before we hold this referendum, let’s have a government that shouts from the rooftops that as partners in Europe we’re part of an exciting and imaginative enterprise of a kind never seen before, a new kind of partnership among sovereign states which transcends nationality yet preserves and safeguards all that’s best in national identity. Before that referendum, let’s have a government that recites five times every day before breakfast the enormous benefits that flow to our economy, our culture and our way of life from our European membership card. Let’s see a great national crusade to expose and kill with ridicule the tawdry lies and psychotic scaremongering and Europhobic ranting of the tabloids and their Eurosceptic groupies. Only then, when national awareness of what’s at stake has been raised to a moderately mature and adult level, can we dare to risk that referendum. Until then, it would be a form of national suicide, a victory for ignorance, prejudice, chauvinism, xenophobia, cowardice and a shameful failure of vision. For all our shortcomings and failures of courage and optimism, we surely don’t deserve that. It’s far too early for us Europeans to surrender to defeatism.
“And, by the way, what is this plucky little Britain that “stood alone against Nazi Germany for twelve long months”? Better ask the Canadians, the Australians, the New Zealanders, the South Africans, the Free Poles, the Indians, the East and West Africans and the West Indians, the Free French, and a host of other tough and welcome allies. I bet their memories won’t be as short and flaky as ours seem to be. It’s fashionable and politically correct now to sneer at the Empire. I’m old enought to remember, though, that we weren’t sneering at the Empire in 1940. How shaming that it’s now their turn to sneer at us!”
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
I think that there should be a vote (in/out) evry five years and dependent on the acounts be signed of so we can have full transparcy
ricki
Ultimately the Tories may have to decide whether they wish to leave the EU or not, but the reality is that they cannot.
And, yes, given that the owners of this blog allow Tory trolls to comment, of course there is a lot of anti-EU comment! However, Labour is, and will remain, a pro-Europe party
Two things which are similar to one another are almost by definition not the same. The two resemble each other in some respects, are different in others. A referendum was promised on one, not on the other. Is that really so hard to grasp?
Perhaps those obsessed with this non-issue would care to return to the subject of this post.
"Brian, I am greatly in admiration of your willingness to (usually) get involved in debate regarding your postings. Unlike many."
George, thanks for that. It's a pleasure as well as a duty to try to respond to comments that are courteously expressed and devoid of personal abuse, and which contain thought-provoking and challenging ideas. (I also try sometimes to respond to comments which lack all these virtues! But not always...)
I'm at a loss to explain the contrast between the bulk of the comments here and the comments on identical posts on my own website (http://www.barder.com/ephems/), to which I also usually try to respond. Of course many authors of LabourLeft posts have to work for their livings and may simply not have time in the day, or night, to reply to comments on them. I'm retired.
Thanks.
I don't want to call you a liar Brian but you seem to know a lot about this issue so how else can we square your comments with the simple fact that the Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty are in substance the same thing?
Let's submit this to the reader. On the one side we have Brian Barder arguing by implication that the two documents are different. On the other side we have the Eurosceptics, who Brian has already told us are "swivel-eyed" and "xenophobic".
But, what's that, would that be Parliament’s European Scrutiny Committee:
As far as the substance of the Reform Treaty and its comparison with the Constitutional Treaty are concerned, we accept that references to the “constitutional concept” or “constitutional characteristics” in trying to distance the present proposals from the creation of a Constitution are less than helpful.
What matters is whether the new Treaty produces an effect which is substantially equivalent to the Constitutional Treaty. We consider that, for those countries which have not requested derogations or opt outs from the full range of agreements in the Treaty, it does.
...or how about the Foreign Affairs Committee:
We conclude that there is no material difference between the provisions on foreign affairs in the Constitutional Treaty which the Government made subject to approval in a referendum and those in the Lisbon Treaty on which a referendum is being denied.
...how about the House of Commons Library:
The content of the Treaty, though not its structure, is similar in a great many respects to the EU Constitution.
And European leaders have also claimed that it is for all intents and purposes the same document:
* “The substance of the Constitution is preserved. That is a fact.” – Angela Merkel, German Chancellor
* “A great part of the content of the European Constitution is captured in the new treaties.” – Jose Zapatero, Spanish Prime Minister
* “The good thing is…that all the symbolic elements are gone, and that which really matters the core – is left.” – Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Danish Prime Minister
* “They haven’t changed the substance – 90 per cent of it is still there.” – Bertie Ahern, Irish Taoiseach
* “Only cosmetic changes have been made and the basic document remains the same.” – Vaclav Klaus, Czech President
* “There’s nothing from the original institutional package that has been changed.” – Astrid Thors, Finnish Europe Minister”
* “The aim of the Constitutional Treaty was to be more readable; the aim of this treaty is to be unreadable … The Constitution aimed to be clear, whereas this treaty had to be unclear. It is a success”. – Karel de Gucht, Belgium Foreign Minister
* “It’s essentially the same proposal as the old Constitution.” – Margot Wallstrom, European Commissioner
Also take note of the words of Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, former President of France and one of the architects of the Constitutional Treaty:
The difference between the original Constitution and the present Lisbon Treaty is one of approach, rather than content. … It was the legal experts for the European Council who were charged with drafting the new text. They have not made any new suggestions. They have taken the original draft constitution, blown it apart into separate elements, and have then attached them, one by one, to existing treaties. The Treaty of Lisbon is thus a catalogue of amendments. … In terms of content, the proposed institutional reforms – the only ones which mattered to the drafting Convention - are all to be found in the Treaty of Lisbon. They have merely been ordered differently and split up between previous treaties. There are, however, some differences. Firstly, the noun “constitution” and the adjective “constitutional” have been banished from the text, as though they describe something inadmissible. … the proposals in the original constitutional treaty are practically unchanged. They have simply been dispersed through old treaties in the form of amendments. Why this subtle change? Above all, to head off any threat of referenda by avoiding any form of constitutional vocabulary. … The Brussels institutions have also cleverly reclaimed the process from the – to them – unwelcome intrusion ofparliamentarians and politicians in the work of the original drafting Convention. The institutions have re-imposed their language and their procedures – taking us even further away from ordinary citizens. … the complexity of the new text, and the apparent surrender of all sweeping ambitions, should be enough to smooth over all difficulties.
"we can only get effective democratic European government by creating and becoming part of a European State. Therein lies the dilemma for the political classes. They don't want to give up their democratic power-base - but still want to be part of the EU, which in its current format cannot be democratic."
That's an extremely interesting proposition, George. My first knee-jerk reaction is to disagree with it, for the reasons that I have set out in other comments here, but on further reflection I suspect that there might be a lot in it. It's depressing to think that you might be right, and I very much hope that you are not.
I personally would be happy with an EU state providing we were all allowed to take part in it's design and construction (politically speaking). Unfortunately very few of our politicians are as genuinely European as I am.
And surely there should be a way of preventing our elected government from simply delegating our law making process to others. I do understand roughly the law masking process in the EU. And it is naive (or dishonest) to claim that the UK parliament debates and scrutinises all these laws before approval. They are prevented from doing so properly because they have, in the main, to be implemented word for word. Only 12 days was allowed to "debate" the Lisbon Treaty; having attended the House on some of these days in no way was it a real debate. And the attendance while I was there amountd to not more than a dozen or so members. Any real debate would have meant amendments, changes and alterantions before it was finally. It was of course already a lost cause and regarded as a fait accompli by everyone - meaning that almost no one turned up to discuss it. What was the point.
How you can dare you to call this democracy I do not know!
"but it's not for "the people" then to usurp the functions of their elected leaders by claiming the right to make policy decisions themselves by referendum, except when a decision is required that fundamentally affects the whole way we're governed"
Passing powers from Westminster to Brussels "fundamentally affects the whole way we're governed", therefore give me my referendum.
Phil, I'm not quite clear about what you're saying here: are you asserting that what I have written about referendums is factually incorrect? If so, it would help your argument if you would identify which part of my remarks is inconsistent with the evidence of both extensive public opinion polling and ordinary common sense. Or are you saying that my remarks are true, but that because they are inconvenient to you, or because they conflict with what others have said on different subjects on other occasions, I ought not to make them? It would be difficult to sustain that proposition, I think.
I don't, I'm afraid, share your devil-may-care attitude to the potentially disastrous consequences for the British people of a decision on ratification of a treaty made by voters who haven't read the treaty concerned, who would be none the wiser if they had (as you'll know if you have taken the trouble to read it yourself), and who perfectly understandably and justifiably have little understanding of the pros and cons of ratification or rejection: most sensible people have little or no interest in the matter and have much better things to do. That decision was rightly made by those whom we elect to take such decisions, just as the decision on ratification of the much more far-reaching Maastricht treaty was taken by our elected parliament and our elected government, not by referendum.
Tony Blair (recklessly in my view) promised a referendum on the Giscard constitution treaty but that was rejected before we could hold one. The government never promised a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, which does not institute a new constitution for the EU but only amends existing treaties, like many EU treaties before it. A promise was made -- indeed, it was decribed by its author as a "cast-iron guarantee" -- to hold a referendum on the Lisbon treaty in the event of a Conservative government taking office even if it had by then been ratified and brought into effect , but that promise was made by David Cameron and has already (thankfully) been withdrawn -- i.e., broken.
Constantly repeating the myth that Labour promised a referendum on the Lisbon treaty doesn't make it true; unfortunately constantly having to point this out doesn't stop people repeating the myth when it suits them. If they believe it, there's little point in further argument with them on what's a purely factual matter. If they know it's a myth but choose to go on repeating it as if it were fact, we know what to think of them.
So the threat is - put up with the undemocratic status quo or go all out for fully fledged EU state. But there are also two oyher options. One is to get out - and the cost/benefits of in or out are largely subjective. The other is to stop and think carefully about how to turn what we have got into something more democratic.
What should be obvious, but clearly isn't to our political classes, that all of these may be acceptable - but the chice should be democratically arrived at - not decided behind closed doors in secret.
As for your very lengthy explanations of how the EU institutions work - surely you appreciate the paradox here. We are entitled to accountable and transparent government institutions (UN Commissioner for Human Rights). Surely your explanations would be unecessary if this were so.
And as for the in or out argument - it is of no significance compared with the need for our future to be determined by democratic means.
"Another serious problem with referendums is that many people vote to administer a kicking to an unpopular government of the day..."
Like the French referendum on the Constitution, which was breezily dismissed as a protest against the incumbent government. Strangely, the second Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty was accepted as an endorsement of the EU.
"...rather than on a considered view about the question"
Yeah, can't let the plebs get all muddled around about the big issues can we. Best leave these things to politicians who are always objective, disinterested and non-partisan (and yet hardly any MPs actually read the Constitution or the Lisbon Treaty).
"A referendum on the Lisbon treaty would have risked being distorted by people voting No, not because of any objection to the treaty's specific provisions but because of general hostility to the UK's membership of the EU”
But someone else would say that a belief in fairness is a poor reason for voting Labour or that standing up for Britain is a poor reason for voting BNP. And so on. The point about democracy is that voters make their own decision without needing to justify their reasoning to the likes of Brian Barder.
We don’t need to prove we have read and understood the provisions of a treaty YOU want us to sign up to. It’s up to us to decide whether or not it’s worth reading. And it's up to us to decide whether or not there should be a referendum. At the last election we made that decision resulting in 97 per cent of the MPs elected promising a referendum.
"A referendum on the Lisbon treaty would have risked being distorted by people voting No, not because of any objection to the treaty's specific provisions but because of general hostility to the UK's membership of the EU"
You don't get it do you Brian, people would vote no because Lisbon is linked to why people have a "general hostility" to the EU.
Lisbon transfers more powers to the EU that the majority of the population do not want transferred. The majority of the population do not want more powers for the EU, they do not want UK laws passed by the EU and they do not want the steady march to a EU nation state the last 20 plus years has brought.
Your whole argument on referendums is one of "you can't trust the electorate because they might be affected by political events".... well no s**t sherlock you don't say.
You also can't work out the basic point on the referendum can you?
Every 4/5 years we vote to place political power with temporary representatives to govern us on the understanding that at the end of those 4/5 years power reverts to us to choose new representatives. We do not want those representatives to give that political power away that we the people trust in them without our direct agreement. If you can't see this you are just another of the anti-democratic EU scum of the earth infesting Brussels that become more dictatorial every year.
On the first question, which is what your and many other comments here mainly seek to address, I don't think you and others take sufficient account of the fact that the EU's major decisions (and a host of minor ones) are taken by democratically elected ministers of national governments who are fully answerable to their national parliaments, and through them to their national electorates, for what they do or have done. They are also answerable to the elected members of the European parliament, who are in turn answerable to those who have elected them (including us). If this doesn't amount to enough accountability for your liking, the only way to increase it would be to institute direct Europe-wide elections to the major bodies and posts of the EU, including the members and now the President of the European Council, the President of the Commission and the President of the European Parliament. This would take the EU a huge step towards becoming a semi-sovereign state with a legitimacy deriving from direct election that would give it an implied authority to overrule national governments. Is that really what you want to happen? I can imagine the howls of dismay and horror that would go up from the Eurosceptics at such a major move towards European integration -- a move going much further than any member state is contemplating or would dream of approving. You can't, I'm afraid, have it both ways.
The idea that instead of instituting direct elections throughout the EU and thereby devaluing the accountability and authority of national governments, EU decisions should henceforth be decided by referendums throughout the EU (or just in Britain and Ireland?) is open to a host of insuperable objections. The whole basis of our liberal parliamentary democracies is the Burkean principle that we elect our legislators and executives to take intricate decisions, often requiring extensive research, intelligence (in the sense of non-public information), expert advice and assessment of likely consequences before they are finalised. We require our elected representatives to listen to our views and to give them due weight, but then to exercise their own best judgement and decide accordingly. We expect them to have the courage sometimes to take unpopular decisions if they believe them to be in our best interests. If we don't like what they have decided, or the consequences of their decisions, we can kick them out at the next election and try another lot. All this applies as much to the decisions our elected representatives take in the EU as to the decisions they have to take many times a day on purely domestic issues. No-one is demanding a referendum on whether British troops should be withdrawn immediately from Afghanistan or on whether public funding of "faith" schools should be terminated. We hold referendums only on really fundamental constitutional issues involving significant change in the way we're governed, such as any change in the electoral system for the house of commons. Another serious problem with referendums is that many people vote to administer a kicking to an unpopular government of the day rather than on a considered view about the question put in the referendum. A referendum on the Lisbon treaty would have risked being distorted by people voting No, not because of any objection to the treaty's specific provisions but because of general hostility to the UK's membership of the EU and/or dislike of the Labour government generally or of Gordon Brown in particular; it could also have been distorted by the fact that the Conservatives would have campaigned for a No vote and the Labour party (and LibDems) for a Yes, so the outcome could have been warped or even determined by party affiliations and loyalties rather than by considered and informed opinions on the matter to be decided. The result is a real danger of wrong and harmful decisions. Referendums are not a reliable substitute for the ordinary mechanisms of our representative democracy. We shouldn't slide unintentionally into a plebiscitory democracy with all its pitfalls: consider the appalling mess that California has got into, almost entirely because its major decisions are taken in referendums. Californians vote for ever more expensive activities by their state government and simultaneously vote to prevent the state raising the taxes needed to pay for them. As a result, California, which should be the richest state in the US, is flat broke. Caveat emptor! (And ask the Swiss when they got around to giving women the vote.)
(There's perhaps a third implied issue arising from my original post: if we are to stay in the EU, should we play the part of wrecker and obstructionist in it, or should we play a positive and constructive part in helping to make the Union more effective in international affairs while seeking to encourage reform of the EU's undoubted deficiencies? But I submit that the answer to that is too obvious to merit discussion.)
Even the referendum is a red herring. The call for a referendum on the constitution is because it seemed to be the only opportunity we should have had to stop this monstrous political con trick in its tracks. Without the freedom to choose who governs us and the way in which we are governed all else is has no significance.
It is time to trust in the democratic process and trust the people to choose what is right because sure as hell our politicians get it wrong most of the time.
Brian, here's a challenge for you, go to your local pub and try and find ONE SINGLE PERSON who agrees with your views. Go on, do it now. Let us know how you get on.
Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and Maoist China all had things going for them if you wanted to twist facts around a bit.
Crime rates were low, everyone had a job one way or another and anyone you didn't like, well you could just make up a a story and inform on them.
The problem of course was you had no choice as to who governed you and what they could or couldn't do with that power.
Do see any similarity? I really don't care if being outside the EU would cost the UK money as I am sick to death of having a near dictatorship imposing law after law on my country with the people having no power to do anything.
Just because people like you say, "now now you'll all be much happier, all you need to do is trust your betters to make decions for you" doesn't mean anyone agrees with you.
I say again, if you argument was so damn good and so many people agreed with you, your EU political masters wouldn't be scheming every which way they could to prevent anyone across the EU from having a say.
France voted no, Holland voted no and never got another chance. Labour got scared and twisted every way possible to deny a vote and Eire, with a constitution that forced a vote, were clearly going to keep asking the same question with additional bribes each time until they got the answer they wanted.
If you seriously believe this is democratic and supportable then I despair at your lies and the autocratic streak that is so NuLabour.
I am a supporter of the EU idea and have been for many years. But I cannot believe in a governmental system that excludes most of us from having a say. Don't you understand that we need the EU to belong to us - not just to the polical classes.
If it were democratic from the beginning it is very likely that there would be little argument for leaving now - and the longer it takes to introduce democratic government the bigger bang there will be when it inevitably all goes wrong. I also do not believe it is just the British who feel like this.
When it was just a treaty agreeing to trading arrangements it was perfectly acceptable for this to be dealt with by government ministers on our behalf. But when it became the setting up an international government by appointment, and our national governments delegating huge powers we should have been consulted. This problem is not just over the recent EU constitution (aka Lisbon treaty) but goes back to Maastrich and before.
The fact is that the EU now is more about politicians than about the people of Europe. You only have to read the start of the EU constitution which begins with a list of heads of state and first ministers who are making commitments on behalf of all of us - whether we like it or not. Compare this with the the USA constitution which begins "We the people of the United States..." There is no such inclusiveness anywhere in the EU government processes.
If only the governments of our countries could have been more honest about their objectives from the beginning we could have had an open and lengthy debate, reached agreement about the future of the EU and now be concentrating on moving forward. As it is it will never heal and will only get worse. It is all very well for politicians to say we have spent enough time on processes we now need to to get on with the job. But we (the electorate) have been excluded from the debate.
So, in summary - it is not about the benefits of in or out. And in any case these are puerile debates because we will never know. It is easy for UKIP to say we would be £45 million a day better off. And just as easy for the Labour party (and the other mainstream parties) to point to the many achievements of the EU. But much of this is very subjective and cannot be proven either way.
But one thing is an indisputable fact. That is that most of the British electorate, and many of the electorate around Europe feel disenfranchised, and excluded from the EU process. Democracy is a meaningless word to the electorate of the EU.
I dont know what the answer is - but I didnt create the mess. But I do know that a fundamental rethink of the weay the EU works is becoming more necessary every day that passes.
The only way we the electorate will have any sanction is to vote UKIP or BNP at the next election. And I am sure many will particularly now Cameron has followed the example set by Brown in letting us down over a vote of the constittuion.
I think we were all marvelling at the calm rationality of your own case when you described all those who disagree with you on this particular issue thusly: “paranoid xenophobic, [displaying] puerile displays of vindictiveness, a swivel-eyed Europhobe displaying ignorance, prejudice, chauvinism, xenophobia, cowardice and a shameful failure of vision [guilty of] tawdry lies and psychotic scaremongering and Europhobic ranting".
And besides, I did outline a case for leaving the EU, namely that I want legislation to be proposed, discussed, amended and voted on by democratically-elected representatives. The EU undermines democracy in substance by taking away these powers from MPs and handing it to unelected commissioners and bureaucrats.
Many of the current problems facing British politics are caused or exacerbated by ignoring this simple democratic principle. What's the point voting for a Labour Government that casually reneges on a clear manifesto pledge? What's the point voting for the Tories when they say they can't do anything about Lisbon even if we're given a referendum on the matter and vote overwhelmingly for its repudiation? Are the people of Britain sovereign in their own land or are we now serfs who will live under whatever political arrangements a clique of politicians in Brussels and Westminster decree?
All too often it is said that it doesn't matter what party you vote for, it never makes any difference. When referenda are ignored, repeated until a particular outcome is reached or simply reneged upon, when more than 70 per cent of our laws originate from non-elected representatives, the cynics have a point.
Just to knock the overall smugness of your long post.
It is pretty irrelevant quoting support for parties who are committed to the EU in one form or another. The issue would have been and should have been commitment to Lisbon, which the leading party at the moment was against and which a majority of electors at the Euro elections in the summer were against as well.
The fact that you miss this is of course no surprise, you are content to believe your fictional position that the majority of the UK are firmly behind the EU and its growing powers, that very few are alarmed at the anti-democratic nature of the EU. That very few of the UK would prefer Westminster to exercise power on our behalf as much as possible and not Brussels.
So again my point on this is very clear, even clear enough for you to grasp. If you EUphiles are right and it's only a small minority annoyed with the EU in the UK then.....
GIVE US A VOTE AND SHOW WE ARE A MINORITY
of course you won't do this, instead you'll continue to post your drivel about how wonderful the EU is whilst wriggling with every excuse you can find to actually find out what the public want.
You and yours are anti-democracy, anti-freedom and display autocratic tendencies the Communist Party in China would be proud of.
Just to rub it in, though: No EU member state is planning to turn the EU into a single unified super-state replacing the individual sovereignties of its member nations. Any number of EU members would vote against any such project, which would anyway require, and stand no chance of getting, unanimity. A unified super-state would not amount to 'federalism', which is the opposite of a unitary or even a union state. Federalism implies decentralisation, not centralism. Decisions of the EU including approval of EU legislation are taken by the democratically elected ministers of the member states and ratified by the democratically elected members of the EU parliament: ministers and MEPs alike are fully and democratically accountable to their own elected national parliaments and electorates. National parliaments' duties include the duty to scrutinise that legislation and those regulations, and their rights include the right to challenge them. All these laws and regulations are publicly available. Not one of the three major political parties in Britain capable of forming a government, or of participating as a junior partner in one, favours British withdrawal from the EU; and the party with the largest number of seats in the Scottish parliament wants EU membership for an independent Scotland. These four parties between them win an overwhelming majority of the country's votes in general elections. Any voter who favours UK withdrawal is free to vote for a party which includes withdrawal prominently among its policies: those parties however receive a derisory share of the national vote. Even political leaders such as David Cameron and William Hague who are sharply critical of many aspects of the EU are perfectly clear that they would be opposed to any suggestion of UK withdrawal from it. Perhaps those who take a different view might ask themselves why the vast majority of the politically literate in Britain [now there's a phrase that will set them all off again!], and of those with hands-on experience of working with our partners in Europe, are firmly convinced that UK membership is very much in Britain's interests and that our withdrawal (or ejection) would be a national disaster. Of course, all these politicians, voters and political institutions might be part of a gigantic continent-wide conspiracy that has been rumbled only by a handful of contributors to LabourList. On balance, however, that seems pretty unlikely. Just a few truisms worth pondering over this evening's Ovaltine.
Obviously this being the EU the actual people in its countries don't count. If they did, though, there'd be little trouble finding allies. Asked a couple of years ago whether the EU should have more powers, 28% said the EU should have more powers than it has now and that more decisions should be taken at the European level (ie people who agree with Mike); 23% thought the EU should keep the powers it had then, but should not be given any more (some hope); and 41% thought the EU should have less powers and that more decisions should be taken at a national or local level. To tally up, that's a 64% majority in favour of no more powers being given to the EU.
"As to the EU, there are many laws they have passed which act upon us which have helped us.
- Equal pay
- Holidays
- Maternity
- WTD
- H&S"
I negotiate my own pay, my own holidays, my own working hours. I'm not likely to get pregnant and Health and safety is a joke that stops the like of school trips etc.
We had legislation on those things before the EU, we could have them after the EU and I suspect they'd be far better versions of them too.
All the French and Germans have done is drop their own red tape costs and restrictions on the UK to make us less competitive. In all my years in management it is always far easier to do business with the US than the EU. French companies in particular being a nightmare to deal with.
So there were no laws in the UK concerning equal pay, holidays, maternity, WTD or H&S before we became members of the EU?
"BTW Europe is a wonderful place much better than America"
Pretty xenophobic thing to say.
"Wouldn't worry about it, Mark. there is precisely no chance that the UK will leave the EU, hence the ever more unbalanced and shrill diatribes by the swivel-eyed loons who call themselves 'Eurosceptic'. They know their dream of a return to Little England is ... what's the word - how about 'kaputt' - so they waste time posting on pro-EU Labour blogs instead."
Really?
There is every chance that the SNP gain power in Scotland and win a independence vote. That coupled with a boundary review means there is every chance England would have a near perfect situation for the Tories.
There is every chance the Tories win the next election with a EUsceptic position and pass legislation blocking any further move to a federal state. France and Germany are talking of exchanging ministers already, so how long before they want to increase their move to federalism and run into a UK Tory led road block?
Just because you keep posting the same tired old "nothing's going to change, nothing you can do about it, you're not having a vote so naaaaa!" anti-democratic drivel doesn't mean you are right.
By the way this "pro-EU Labour blog" seems to have a lot of anti-EU Labour comment.
But then I doubt you can see that can you, so blinded by your EU rapture.
I just wonder why you do it is not like you going to persuade people to your view is it ?
You think anyone on here would subscribe to your view unless a Tory but Tories are supposed to protect the union.
As to the EU, there are many laws they have passed which act upon us which have helped us.
- Equal pay
- Holidays
- Maternity
- WTD
- H&S
all laws would never have been brought in by Tories as they believe in 'less regulation' and the same lesson from a year ago is never learnt.
BTW Europe is a wonderful place much better than America, Madrid, Paris, Rome, Amsterdam, Lisbon, Berlin are all wonderful cities in their own way and your narrow view misses out on so much I can understand why you think as you do.
"why not join the English Democrats if you feel so strong about 'being English' and want to be governed by 'Englishmen'?"
Nope. I'm all for the SNP, the sooner they win and England is free of Scotland the better. Remove the Scottish Labour MPs and redraw the boundaries and I'm fairly likely to never have a Labour government again.
why not join the English Democrats if you feel so strong about 'being English' and want to be governed by 'Englishmen' ?
I'm English and at a push British. I am certainly not "European", never have been and never will be.
If Britain managed to govern itself for 100s of years without the EU then I'm of the opinion that it could do so again, much as numerous other countries around the globe manage to govern themselves without the EU.
I was and am fully in favour of a free trade zone, but it is clear that France and Germany in particular want a fully federal EU nation state structure.
I do not want that for England and if that means leaving the EU then so be it.
I never see any argument to what that actually means that is so awful, only comments about how we will de very, very sorry boo hoo. In fact it seems the only reason left wing EUphiles seem to have is that it might stop a leftward drift in UK politics.
I holiday in the US, Caribbean and never the EU
I watch US films and TV, never French or German.
I speak English as do US, Caribbean, Canada, and Australia etc. not French, German etc. and will never learn.
If I never set foot on French or German soil again I shall have missed nothing.
I am English, I want to be governed by Englishmen and women who are democratically answerable to me. I do not want to be governed by Frenchmen and Germans who are answerable to no-one.
You may call me "stupid", "insular" and all the other simple minded insults EUphiles throw about, I will retort with something very simple:
GIVE ME A VOTE AND LET ME AND MY FELLOW COUNTRYMEN HAVE A SAY ON YOUR ANTI-DEMOCRATIC, CORRUPT, OLD BOYS CLUB.
It expresses in shrill tones the EUrophiles' contempt for true democracy and self-determination.
Having just pushed through the Lisbon (aka Constitutional) Treaty by stealth, it would be cannier politics to lie low as your 'European Project' juggernaut continues on the road to 'ever closer union'.
All you are doing is upsetting us EUrosceptics - who in response will up our efforts to upset your plans.
We have to feel part of it - but no-one does. Our opinions must make a difference - but they don't.
Our politicians love the EU for two main reasons. Firstly it is a dumping ground for failed politicians who might otherwise make a nuisance of themselves. You know who they are!
Secondly, it enables our government to legislate in matters that they can claim little repsonibility for by saying it is EU law.
So forget everything else - whether or not we have benefited from membership; if it would be a catastrophe if we left; are we xenophobic. Because until it becomes a genuine democratic union with the people feeling that their opinions matter and that they can influence their own government, this running sore will continue to get worse.
A final comment.
The UN Commissioner for Human Rights sets out the requirements for democracy which includes:
The right of the electorate to choose its government institutions. And government institutions should be transparent and accountable. Can you honestly say that our EU government fills either of these requirements - because I do not?
We now also have a roadmap thanks to the Lisbon Treaty to do this.
The EU have also given the nod that this is perfectly acceptable to them.
We could downgrade our membership to the EEA.
There is one thing the EU understands, forget the 'partnership' and 'better together' and 'influence' guff because it is guff.
There is one thing the EU cares about - money.
If the UK threatened to downgrade its membership, no development fund contributions, no CAP contribution. Simply a payment for membership of EEA, even on the same terms per capita as Norway would represent better value for money for the UK.
We remain part of the Common Market and reject the federal Europe 'experiment'. We keep the law enforcement and intelligence collaboration, the open borders and aspects of social policy.
I am also aware of our history, the UK is a trading nation. The saying used to be 'Export or Die'.
As you allude to 1940, the UK is also still capable of building its own coalitions, we still have foreign policy punch better than any other European country.
Lastly this: Let’s see a great national crusade to expose and kill with ridicule the tawdry lies and psychotic scaremongering and Europhobic ranting of the tabloids and their Eurosceptic groupies. Only then, when national awareness of what’s at stake has been raised to a moderately mature and adult level, can we dare to risk that referendum. Until then, it would be a form of national suicide, a victory for ignorance, prejudice, chauvinism, xenophobia, cowardice and a shameful failure of vision. For all our shortcomings and failures of courage and optimism, we surely don’t deserve that. It’s far too early for us Europeans to surrender to defeatism.
Labour's European policy is to blame for any paucity of debate on Europe. Labour's action on EU policy is capitulation of the UK rebate for absolutely nothing in return. Labour's 'conversation' with the populace is to lie, decieve, cheat, obfusicate, deny and deceive.
That referendum was denied because the UK would have rejected that Treaty.
The people, remember them Brian, would have spoken.
And could you imagine the EU daring to ask the UK to vote again?
The actions of the Labour Party are the actions of political pygmies, idiots, shysters and con-men. You can complain about a lack of debate Brian but looking at the calibre of your reaction, that is not debate, that is a deeply psychopathic fear of debate.
A debate where 2/3rd of UK voters want out.
It's not lost on the public when Labour labels the opposition of being anti-semitic when they are not. Your irrationality is mere par for the course.
There are courses of action; ever increasing EU powers is not inevitable. Labour have shown that being 'Good' Europeans is to cede power and money for nothing.
Time for a change.
"We know better than you because we know what goes on. We can't be bothered to inform you so you would vote against us,, so we'll not let you vote" seems to be the message.
Arrogance, contempt for the voters and intolerance of different opinions.
In other countries it is called dictatorship.
You're right! Suitably admonished.
I think this is what Carl Sagan would call a case of the Excluded Middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is). Or perhaps an Argument From Adverse Consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision).
In other words, the usual illogical scare tactics we've come to expect from people who are congenitally unable to see how shamelessly wrong the EU really is.
As if that weren't enough, "liberal democracy within the EU" is an oxymoron. The whole problem with the EU is that it corrupts liberal democracy by constantly reducing the role of democratically elected representatives in favour of unelected Commissioners and bureaucrats. It ignores the outcome of referenda unless they produce the desired result and abets the likes of New Labour into reneging on clear manifesto commitments.
Is this the choice according to Hugh - a 'liberal' democracy (where the electorate will shortly have no power to exercise) or a Nazi state.
Pills and men in white coats please!
Exactly the same thing is happening here. The polarisation is sickening. To the EU-ophiles anyone who criticises the institutions of the EU are xenophobic, racist,'swivel-eyed'.
Why is this? What are they so frightened about that they have to reduce the argument to this level of abuse.
Please, just for once try and be mature and understand a simple fact. There is vast difference between disliking the political construct that is the European Union and disliking the peoples and countries of Europe.
I like Europe as a group of countries, I like many of their people too. I love being near them and being able to travel there. Long that may remain the case. However. I do not want to continue to remain within the political construct that is the EU. I would rather leave the EU and work closely with other countries on mutually beneficial projects as required. other countries work in theis way and we could as well. In many ways I agree with some parts of what have been achieved by the EEC. But that's where I want it to stop. I don't want 'ever closer union'.
Please explain to me how this approach is xenophobic, racist,'swivel-eyed' or will lead to a facist, xenophobic state.
Like the Norwegians. Bloody Nazis.
We have two futures ahead of us, one as a liberal democracy within the EU, and the other a descent into xenophobic quasi-fascism.
I sincerely hope my former country can see past the foreign media influence and those who would prefer troughing to focus at Westminster, and look to the long-term future and stability of Britain and the rest of Europe.
What is wrong with a tariff free trading zone?
But why should they take seriously the pro-Europeans who for years have denied we are moving towards a federal Europe and slandered those that argued we were as, well, paranoid and xenophobic?
Furthermore, can I ask why not supporting moves to boost the decision making powers of bodies such as the European Commission is xenophobic and why - given that polls seem to suggest the public around the EU aren't too keen on it - you would actually want ever closer union with a bunch of bigots (ie your fellow EU citizens)?
But Brian tells me that I am actually: “a paranoid xenophobic, [displaying] puerile displays of vindictiveness, a swivel-eyed Europhobe displaying ignorance, prejudice, chauvinism, xenophobia, cowardice and a shameful failure of vision [guilty of] tawdry lies and psychotic scaremongering and Europhobic ranting".
It's helpful to have someone around like Brian Barder who knows our own minds better than we do. No wonder EU-philes don't bother with consulting the masses.
i.e. Don't let the people have a say for a very long time in case they go and make the wrong choice. Better instead to lull the serfs until they feel that living in a dictatorship is normal.