Keyboard worrier
Showing posts with label democracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label democracy. Show all posts

Sunday, August 30, 2015

1975: we were warned

Tony Benn, 27 May 1975

Congratulations and thanks to The Boiling Frog for scanning a 1976 study of the previous year's Common Market referendum. What is clear is that the sovereignty issue was buried in a heap of other, more temporary concerns (including the oil crisis and inflation), and biased and personalized media coverage.

Plus a consciousness among the media bods of the risk of boring the voters, which opens another debate on whether democracy is really able to deal with complex matters.

Back to bias: Peter Hitchens has pointed out the way the Yes and No pamphlets differed in their treatment:

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2015/08/the-1975-common-market-referendum-campaign-documents.html

- but that the truth was there if we cared to look closely:

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2015/08/there-was-no-excuse-for-thinking-the-common-market-was-just-a-free-trade-group-in-1975.html

... which was even less obvious in the 1970 General Election that preceded Heath's move to get us into "Europe":

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2015/08/what-the-main-party-manifestoes-said-about-europe-in-1970.html

I wonder whether the campaigns and coverage will be any better in the lead-up to the promised 2017 Referendum?


READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.

Wednesday, May 13, 2015

Fairer votes for the UK (2): regional inequalities

One way in which the voting system is skewed is the disproportion between the size of the electorates in our member nations and number of their seats in the national Parliament, as discussed in the previous piece.

Overlaid on that is a difference in turnout (which in itself may be an indication of other inefficiencies in our system of representation that dissuade many from involving themselves at all). So the results in the 2015 General Election show that Welsh and Northern Irish voters returned more MPs per vote cast, if one can put it that way:



Within the nation-regions, Party voters are unevenly distributed and this leads to a bias in results under "First Past The Post". That bias varies regionally, again reflecting the uncomfortable compromise between local and national loyalties. In the charts below, equitable representation would score a 1.00 ratio between overall votes obtained and seats gained:


 



An independent MP (and we have only one in the UK!) will score highest of all, since all her votes are concentrated in one constituency.

And that leads us on to another conflict: are we voting for a political party or a person? Opponents of the political-list system like to stress the connection between the local MPs and their constituents. But in a "safe" seat it seems that only the rosette matters and candidates can be parachuted in from Central Office. Or (as in my former MP's case) switched to a safer neighbouring constituency when boundary changes threaten his effortless security.

Looking at the UK as a whole, we see a bizarrely skewed result, reflecting inequalities in regional seat allocation (average size of constituency), turnout, and geographical distribution of party voters:


This has worked heavily against certain minor parties:


It is said that the current system allows us to have majority governments (and to throw out ones we don't like).

But this is at a cost: we have (in my opinion) been misgoverned for many decades by parties who have an eye on the swing voter in the swing seat, who often pursue policies that the majority greatly dislike (and that may be harmful and foolish), and who are happy to see large numbers of the electorate become completely disconnected from the process of (alleged) self-government.


READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.

Tuesday, May 12, 2015

Fairer votes for the UK (1): adjusting regional disparities

Whether the current voting system is broken or running fine, depends on your point of view. For the Tories it seems to be going swimmingly. For many others, it looks like a pig's ear.

In the first place, there is the issue of local or regional identity vs national identity and governance. The four components of the UK are not represented in Parliament in proportion to their voting population:
 

Scotland and Northern Ireland are favoured slightly (by about 1 seat), and Wales significantly so (by 8 seats). A closer fit would be this (and I give another alternative based on Cam's plan to cut the number of MPs to 600):


There are regional differences in turnout, but doubtless these will vary from one General Election to another, and for different reasons, so it wouldn't be just to allocate seats according to actual votes cast in previous elections. But the differences in turnout this time are noticeable:

  Turnout %
England 65.9
Scotland 71.1
Wales 65.6
N. Ireland 58.1

I suppose the independence issue stimulated the Scots, and perhaps as Northern Ireland's changing demographic continues to steer them into an accommodation with the South their voters may increasingly see the lands to their East as of declining relevance to them?


READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.

Monday, May 11, 2015

Lancing the boil of democracy

"Red Ed" was urged to do it two years ago, now Cam.

Hitchens says (or did, before he was taken off the paperwaves) the same cornucopia of lies that got Mr 37% his unexpected majority last week will swing behind No in the EU referendum, however neutrally-worded the question. I've said the same myself.

The people will vote for the loss of their vote. Probably for Wilson's "FOOD and MONEY and JOBS." Then they'll find, just like Greece, how much food and money and jobs are actually in the mess of pottage for which they've irrevocably thrown away their power to say no.

"And Jacob said to Rebekah his mother, Behold, Esau my brother [is] a hairy man, and I [am] a smooth man."



READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.

Tuesday, May 05, 2015

EU: the sand line

A year ago, Iain Dale passed on a claim that the EU could block Cameron's promised 2017 referendum under the new "qualified majority voting" (QMV) rules, and Ian Parker-Joseph has made reference to the same claim on FB today.

What the Tulkinghorns of law and constitution fail to understand is that nations are governed not solely by the will of the majority (or their representatives), but also by the acquiescence of the minority. However craftily written, pieces of paper don't bind by themselves. If the schemers in their chambers forget this, they could cause dangerous cracks in the body politic.

Here's Jefferson in 1774:

When the representative body have lost the confidence of their constituents, when they have notoriously made sale of their most valuable rights, when they have assumed to themselves powers which the people never put into their hands, then indeed their continuing in office becomes dangerous to the state, and calls for an exercise of the power of dissolution...

A free people [claim] their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.

And here, in 1782:

"Civil government being the sole object of forming societies, its administration must be conducted by common consent." -- Notes on Virginia Q.VIII, 1782. ME 2:120

Must the lessons of history be re-learned?


READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.

Sunday, May 03, 2015

Should there be an EU Commissioner's Question Time in Parliament?

HAVE YOU SEEN THIS MAN?



No, I haven't, and I didn't know his name until I looked him up by his job. Yet he and his committee have more power, and better salaries, than the Prime Minister.

The only way the European Parliament could remove the Commissioners is by an absolute two-thirds majority vote of all MEPs (not just of those who took part in the vote). But if we Brits don't like ours, tough.

Shouldn't he have a chance to explain and defend the Commission's actions and policies, and how and why he himself voted and spoke, once or twice a week in the House of Commons?

And shouldn't our Commissioner be directly elected by us (and subject to deselection), rather than appointed by the government of the day?


READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.

Sunday, April 26, 2015

Yesterday's Men and today's BIG, BIG issue

In the General Election campaign of 1970, Alan Aldridge designed a controversial poster showing plasticine models of the Conservative Cabinet and encouraging the electorate to write them off.

It didn't work. Heath won:

Edition of 20th June, 1970

- and the country lost. But it didn't know it. Ten years earlier, Lord Kilmuir had advised the future Prime Minister:

"I must emphasise that in my view the surrenders of sovereignty involved are serious ones and I think that, as a matter of practical politics, it will not be easy to persuade Parliament or the public to accept them. I am sure that it would be a great mistake to under-estimate the force of the objections to them. But those objections ought to be brought out into the open now because, if we attempt to gloss over them at this stage, those who are opposed to the whole idea of our joining the Community will certainly seize on them with more damaging effect later on."

RESEARCH PAPER 10/79 - Appendix 2 Letter to Edward Heath from Lord Kilmuir, December 1960 [www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/rp10-79.pdf]

From 1973 on we were in what we thought - what we had been told and assured - was nothing more than a trading arrangement, and Heath had long known to be a glass slope down to European Union.


Edition of 30th December, 1972

So in the Labour manifesto of February 1974, the Leader of the Opposition Harold Wilson said (my highlights):

"The Government called this election in panic. They are unable to govern, and dare not tell the people the truth.

"Our people face a series of interlocking crises. Prices are rocketing. The Tories have brought the country to the edge of bankruptcy and breakdown. More and more people are losing their jobs. Firms are going out of business. Housing costs are out of reach for so many families. The Common Market now threatens us with still higher food prices and with a further loss of Britain's control of its own affairs. We shall restore to the British people the right to decide the final issue of British membership of the Common Market.  

"The British people were never consulted about the Market. Even more, the country was deceived in 1970 about the Government's intentions on jobs and prices. They will not be deceived again."

Hence the 1975 Referendum, by which time Wilson was Prime Minister and was recommending a Yes vote:

"THE NEW DEAL

"The better terms which Britain will enjoy if we stay in the Common Market were secured only after long and tough negotiations.

"These started in April 1974 and did not end until March of this year.

"On March 10 and 11 the Heads of Government met in Dublin and clinched the bargain. On March 18 the Prime Minister was able to make this announcements:

"'I believe that our renegotiation objectives have been substantially though not completely achieved.'

"What were the main objectives to which Mr. Wilson referred? The most important were FOOD and MONEY and JOBS."

Who doesn't want these things? Who can manage without them? Who would have continued reading the pamphlet after this point, if they had read it at all? How many who did, would have teased out the timebomb issues further on in this document, or understood how to weigh them against the bribe-threats of "FOOD and MONEY and JOBS"?

Wilson continued:
 
WILL PARLIAMENT LOSE ITS POWER?

Another anxiety expressed about Britain's membership of the Common Market is that Parliament could lose its supremacy, and we would have to obey laws passed by unelected 'faceless bureaucrats' sitting in their headquarters in Brussels.

What are the facts?

Fact No. 1 is that in the modern world even the Super Powers like America and Russia do not have complete freedom of action. Medium-sized nations like Britain are more and more subject to economic and political forces we cannot control on our own.

A striking recent example of the impact of such forces is the way the Arab oil-producing nations brought about an energy and financial crisis not only in Britain but throughout a great part of the world.

Since we cannot go it alone in the modern world, Britain has for years been a member of international groupings like the United Nations, NATO and the International Monetary Fund.

Membership of such groupings imposes both rights and duties, but has not deprived us of our national identity, or changed our way of life.

Membership of the Common Market also imposes new rights and duties on Britain, but does not deprive us of our national identity. To say that membership could force Britain to eat Euro-bread or drink Euro-beer is nonsense.

Fact No. 2. No important new policy can be decided in Brussels or anywhere else without the consent of a British Minister answerable to a British Government and British Parliament.

The top decision-making body in the Market is the Council of Ministers, which is composed of senior Ministers representing each of the nine member governments.

It is the Council of Ministers, and not the market's officials, who take the important decisions. These decisions can be taken only if all the members of the Council agree. The Minister representing Britain can veto any proposal for a new law or a new tax if he considers it to be against British interests. Ministers from the other Governments have the same right to veto.

All the nine member countries also agree that any changes or additions to the Market Treaties must be acceptable to their own Governments and Parliaments.

Remember: All the other countries in the Market today enjoy, like us, democratically elected Governments answerable to their own Parliaments and their own voters. They do not want to weaken their Parliaments any more than we would."

Fact No. 3. The British Parliament in Westminster retains the final right to repeal the Act which took us into the Market on January 1, 1973. Thus our continued membership will depend on the continuing assent of Parliament.

The White Paper on the new Market terms recently presented to Parliament by the Prime Minister declares that through membership of the Market we are better able to advance and protect our national interests. This is the essence of sovereignty.

Fact No. 4. On April 9, 1975, the House of Commons voted by 396 to 170 in favour of staying in on the new terms.

Note the ultimate reassurance in "Fact No. 3".

And so:

Edition of 7th June, 1975

Forty years on, the 2015 Conservative Manifesto says (contextualising it in a discussion of economic migration to the UK):

We will negotiate new rules with the EU, so that people will have to be earning here for a number of years before they can claim benefits, including the tax credits that top up low wages. Instead of something-fornothing, we will build a system based on the principle of something-for-something. We will then put these changes to the British people in a straight in-out referendum on our membership of the European Union by the end of 2017.

Once again, fundamental democratic issues are blended with economics. And there is some question about the circumstances in which this pledge would be binding. In his speech of 23rd January 2013, Cameron said (my highlight):

The next Conservative Manifesto in 2015 will ask for a mandate from the British people for a Conservative government to negotiate a new settlement with our European partners in the next Parliament.

At present we do not have a Conservative government, but a coalition, and this seems likely to be the situation after next month. And even it there is indeed an in-out referendum, will the people be fully informed of the implications? Will they be bribed and threatened? What will the Press and TV do?

Now here's the big, big issue: we're past the point at which national freedom simply means freedom from the EU. Wilson told us forty years ago:

Fact No. 1 is that in the modern world even the Super Powers like America and Russia do not have complete freedom of action. Medium-sized nations like Britain are more and more subject to economic and political forces we cannot control on our own.

We are now slithering further down the glass mountain, into an era of global governance. International trade agreements and regulation will more and more take precedence over national governments and their courts - and a secretive system of arbitration in trade disputes is bypassing open fora of international justice, so that a handful of firms in London (now taking one side, now the other, case by case) can impose multimillion-pound settlements on the UK and other sovereign nations, to suit the ambition and avarice of multinational enterprises.

To think we are still fighting the EU issue, when an even bigger threat to democracy is at our backs. David Malone ("Golem XIV") makes this clear.

But democracy can be used against itself, now as before: prejudice, misunderstanding, lack of understanding, misinformation, bribes and threats, the jokes of ignorant and partisan comedians, the slurs in the unthinking social media.

Fight, or flight? Are we "yesterday's men"(and women)?


READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.

Sunday, December 28, 2014

Modern party politics trumps democratic representation and personal principle

Craig Murray, on his unsuccessful attempt to become an SNP Parliamentary candidate for Westminster:

"I was asked at assessment whether, as part of a Westminster deal with another party, I would agree to vote for the bedroom tax if instructed by the Party. I replied “No.” End of SNP political career. Problem is, I really believed we were building a different kind of politics in Scotland. I also knew that a simple lie would get me in, but I couldn’t bring myself to utter it...

"I’m afraid to say that the Panel did not feel able to recommend you for approval as a potential parliamentary candidate at this time. While you showed excellent qualities, you could not give a full commitment on group discipline issues...

"...the only question to which I gave an answer that could possibly be interpreted that way, was the one... on the bedroom tax. There was, incidentally, no corresponding question designed to test the loyalty of right wing people."

Party politics is ripe for culling. No wonder we have direct-democracy campaigns such as the Harrogate Agenda.


READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.

Monday, November 10, 2014

Catalonia: a case to answer

2.25 million Catalans voted in an independence "opinion poll" yesterday, and over 80% said both yes to becoming an autonomous state, and yes to being fully sovereign (breaking from Spain altogether).

That makes about 1.8 million for secession, out of a total of 5.4 million registered voters living in Catalonia. A third of all voters.

A 42% turnout is impressive, bearing in mind this was an unofficial poll organised by 40,000 volunteers - the UK's 2005 General Election turnout was only 61%.

But even if absolutely everyone voted in an official Catalonian referendum and two-thirds said no, that would still leave a deep division. I can't see that sticking your fingers in your ears is a viable strategy for Madrid.

Devo max for Catalonia?


READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.

Saturday, November 08, 2014

Shock UK Poll Result: Greens in 6-point lead!

http://voteforpolicies.org.uk/

If manifestoes matter, check out the offers and make your choice:

http://voteforpolicies.org.uk/


READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.

Tuesday, June 03, 2014

President Obama and Executive Orders

It is being said that President Obama is over-fond of issuing decrees in the form of Executive Orders. The answer is yes - and no.

The graph below shows how many Orders each US President has issued, and it is clear that the twentieth century has seen an enormous increase in the use of this legislative tool.

I find it harder to get similar information on UK Orders in Council, but the picture is clear: the Executive has become addicted to short cuts in the exercise of power. There is certainly something to worry about, but equally certainly President Obama should not be seen as culpably exceptional.

(Click to enlarge)

READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.

Saturday, April 26, 2014

Democracy Online

I suppose it's reasonable to believe that when you're browsing the comment sections of blogs, interactive media or Facebook that you are reading the thoughts and opinions of genuine readers. Naturally some of them may work for the state or be functionaries of political parties but would you actually expect them to be paid expressly with taxpayers money to post messages of a particular nature?

Welcome to the rise of the professional, tax-funded internet Troll.


45223
10 April 2014
21 April 2014

Job Title:
Social Media Coordinator

Working For:
International Alert

Location:
London

Salary:
Negotiable

Job Details:

This is a short-term consultancy contract until the end of May 2014, with an immediate start. Job share or part-time considered.

Are you a social media enthusiast? Do you engage on a variety of different social channels? We’re looking for someone creative and dynamic that has a natural flair for social media engagement. You will work closely with International Alert’s Communications and Europe Teams, and be responsible for running a short-term social media campaign (#EUnify) to counter racist and xenophobic discourse in the UK in the run-up to the European elections.

You will be responsible for building and engaging with audiences on the project’s social media channels, which includes coming up with content ideas, creating new content, amplifying messages online, managing and starting community conversations and making sure the social campaign is in line with the project's goals.

Tasks include:

  • Building and amplifying campaign messages online
  • Updating the project’s social media platforms - publishing daily posts on Facebook, Twitter, blogs and any other relevant social media channels
  • Increasing networks and expanding our reach across all social media channels
  • Managing and moderating user generated content and posting responses including on-going conversations and private messages
  • Working closely with internal teams and partners to respond to issues and co-ordinate content activity
  • Disseminating messages and materials to partner networks and channels
  • Setting appropriate targets on engagement and activity
  • Compiling statistics and monitoring engagement on a regular basis

Skills required:

  • Ability to create engaging and compelling written and visual content
  • Proven ability to conceive, implement, and manage cutting-edge online strategies, including mobilisation campaigns
  • Proficient in using and managing Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Google+, LinkedIn and blogs for marketing/campaigning purposes
  • Ability to work to tight deadlines with a ‘can do’ attitude towards managing multiple tasks
  • Expertise with online analytics
  • Demonstrated ability to understand complex public policy and translate it into compelling digital content

For the full details please see the advertised post on our website: http://international-alert.org/jobs/social-media-coordinator.

Closing Date:

21 April 2014

I bring your attention to this section :

You will work closely with International Alert’s Communications and Europe Teams, and be responsible for running a short-term social media campaign (#EUnify) to counter racist and xenophobic discourse in the UK in the run-up to the European elections.

I think it's clear that they mean to target UKIP.

International Alert is an NGO, that means in reality a taxpayer funded, un-elected and permanent wing of the Labour Party.

This is the new face of democracy.


That's my vote decided. 


READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.

Saturday, March 13, 2010

"Consent has not been given" - the EU and cross-party collusion



'It seems a shame,' the Walrus said,
'To play them such a trick,
After we've brought them out so far,
And made them trot so quick!'
The Carpenter said nothing but
'The butter's spread too thick!'

_________________________________________________
Email to Nick Clegg MP via his website, 17 February 2010:

Dear Mr Clegg

I was recently doorstepped by your colleague John Hemming MP, now that my address falls into the Yardley constituency, following recent changes by the Boundary Commission.

Mr Hemming asked whether there were any issues I would like addressed, and my immediate response was Europe, and when we would be allowed a referendum on our membership. He referred me to his support for EDM 20 (18.11.2009) and this, coupled with his courtesy in actually asking for my vote and opinion in person, are factors that, ceteris paribus, would persuade me to vote for him in the next General Election.

However, seeing the behaviour of the other major political parties on that topic, Mr Hemming’s stance will be entirely futile if an EU referendum is not also LibDem policy. Can you give me any assurances that will make it worth while to vote LibDem rather than UKIP in 2010?
______________________________________________________
Reply from Douglas Dowell, 10 March 2010:

Dear Mr xxx

Many thanks for your email to Nick Clegg MP. Nick has asked me to contact you on his behalf. I apologise for the delay in responding but I hope you’ll understand that, due to the sheer volume of correspondence that Nick has been receiving, it can take some time for us to reply.

Liberal Democrats understand that EU membership is controversial and that many people have concerns about it. However, we believe that membership is vital to Britain and we would point out that an exit would be very far from cost-free. It is true that countries such as Norway and Iceland, by virtue of their membership of the European Economic Area, have access to the single market without EU membership: but they have to pay for it. EEA countries pay into the EU’s funds, as do members, but have no ability to amend or change the laws which are enacted at EU level except, in theory, an ability to reject outright – which would be a potential occasion for the EU to terminate the EEA agreement. This is no real choice – simply a requirement to implement most EU laws without a vote on those laws. This is not a model Liberal Democrats want for Britain.

However, we also recognise that the European Union has evolved significantly since the last public vote on membership in 1975. Liberal Democrats therefore remain committed to an in/out referendum on EU membership the next time a British Government signs up for fundamental change in the relationship between the UK and the EU. This is the vote on Europe that really matters – not a dishonest vote on any particular treaty, but a chance for the European question to be settled once and for all.

Thank you once again for emailing.

Best wishes,

Douglas Dowell
Office of Nick Clegg MP
Leader of the Liberal Democrats
____________________________________________________
My response to Mr Dowell, 10 March 2010:

Dear Mr Dowell

Thank you for your courteous and detailed reply.

Your para 2 gives one side of the argument, which is fine, and I'm sure there are arguments to be made on the other side also. The thrust of my question is not primarily about for and against EU membership; if we had an honest debate and a referendum, I would abide by the result of the people's decision, whichever way it went.

In my view, this is the biggest constitutional shift since 1688. The issue is so great that it cannot be limited to an imprecisely-worded rider to a raft of manifesto commitments and aspirations. The fact is, we haven't been asked and the status quo, half in and half out, is one we have come to without proper democratic authorisation. It is like finding oneself being married by proxy, without banns, vows or exchange of tokens. Consent has not been given.

It is nothing like adequate to promise a vote "next time" there is some "fundamental" change. You will be aware of the ratchet-like legal process that has already commenced, and the way in which EU Commissioners and others find their positions and pensions conditional on their active support of ever-closer union.

From the street, it looks as though all three major political parties have colluded to repudiate democracy, and some would say that the political class as a whole has therefore lost the moral right to claim to represent us. This disconnection between rulers and ruled, together with the growing gap between the financial class and the consumers and workers they have abused, may threaten economic and social stability within the next generation.

I simply cannot use my vote to legitimise any party that refuses me a vote when it most matters. The LibDems appear to take the franchise seriously, with your call for the STV/Alternative Vote, and you have worked hard to build connections with local communities; why so shy of a referendum?

Sincerely
_______________________________________________
No further response yet.

Monday, March 01, 2010

Democracy: why bother?


After all the fuss I make about the right to decide, I thought I'd look at General Election results in my own constituency. No wonder MPs used to think they could get away with pretty much anything they liked - and probably still can.

The winner is: None Of The Above; disqualified (because he doesn't appear on the ballot paper) in favour of the runner-up, Indifference.

Friday, November 06, 2009

On democracy in Britain

Following the Czech ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, there's excitement over the widened split in the Conservative Party and the possibility of forming a new party or coalition to wrest power from the professional political elite and restore democracy to the people.

I believe this is completely mistaken.

You will find:

(a) the tremendous power of apathy (look how Karl Denninger has gone from making a personal fortune in equities to crying uselessly on the blogwaves about politics);
(b) when (if) you have split a log, it can be split further, until there is nothing but kindling and splinters.

We do not have democracy in this country, as the ancient Athenians understood the term. We have "representative" democracy, which ultimately reduces the population to two classes:

(i) practitioners
(ii) petitioners

The most we can hope for is to influence one of the two great power factions that take turns to rule us. As David Cameron and co. now feel their vulnerability, our maximum influence lies in the threat to his potential vote. By looking as though we may indeed shatter his support into a hundred pieces and so end with a hung Parliament or even another Labour government, we can make him listen, instead of pretending to listen.

But it has to be a simple, single demand, with the promise that the fragments will gather around it. I would suggest simply, a referendum on EU membership per se, "in or out", and purely on the issue of democratic legitimisation.

The arguments pro and con can come later; in fact, must come later: if you hear bletherskites like Ken Clarke (he so reminds me of ex-Bishop David Jenkins), they're always trying to confuse the referendum with the benefits of EU membership, so as to prevent you from asking for the vote.

Going for the split now uses the weapon without uttering the threat, and will be uselessly destructive.

Wednesday, November 04, 2009

Black holes and the collapse of democracy

Last night I watched a Horizon programme about black holes. Experts don't understand them, and every galaxy has a giant one in the middle, weighing typically 0.1% of the mass of its host. Nothing can escape it as it continually collapses, and at its heart is a singularity where all the normal rules break down. Anything can happen at the centre; nothing is impossible.

And then I saw the ten o'clock news. The President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus, with the unhappy face of a Neville Chamberlain, had caved in and signed the Lisbon Treaty, the enabling legislation that takes Europe over the event horizon and towards "ever-closer union". Klaus wrote to his country's constitutional court:

“Twenty years after the restoration of our democracy and sovereignty, we are once again dealing with the question whether we should — this time voluntarily — give up the position of a sovereign state and hand over decision-making on our own matters to European institutions outside of the democratic control of our citizens.”

And so the millennarian (it had been planned to be complete by 2000) madness sweeps another into the host. At the centre, now irrecoverably detached from the rest of the universe, the club gathers, surrounded by advisers and servants of every kind, all determined to live as high and as absurd as Marie Antoinette tending her washed sheep, as we career chaotically towards economic breakdown and the loss of law, freedom and security. The transfer of wealth and power without consent - without our consent - is crime and tyranny.

Centripetal forces create centrifugal forces. The overweening power-seeking of the mediaeval Papacy hastened the move towards a Europe of sovereign states and religious fraction. Now, the forced bureaucratic union at the top of our group of societies will lead to greater disunion lower down, of which the BNP's Nick Griffin is merely a small, scruffy symptom.

In the middle ages, the walled towns developed internally; there sprang up strong-walled houses for the wealthy elite, to protect themselves not only from each other, but from the desperate, hungry, half-naked mob outside.

In the dream is denial, and in denial is defeat.

Sunday, October 04, 2009

The dolorous stroke




Falling towers
Jerusalem Athens Alexandria
Vienna London
Unreal



Hitchens (1):

A great grey Tower of Babel reaches up into the sky over Europe, lopsided, full of cracks and likely to collapse in the fullness of time...

For Britain, Europe’s oldest continuously independent sovereign state, [...] it is the end of 1,000 years of history, as predicted by the Labour leader Hugh Gaitskell as long ago as 1962...

In the EU, Ireland – no longer a Tiger – takes its place alongside Slovenia and Lithuania as a quirky, minor possession on the damp and unvisited fringes of the Continent, with almost no voting power.

Shorn – as it is now – of its ability to get in the way, it may find that the flow of subsidies will become much thinner in years to come...

The ascent of the EU happened to coincide with several decades of unheard-of prosperity and growth. But the EU did not cause that prosperity...

It was based on American Marshall Aid and helped along by American and British willingness to spend heavily on defending Europe against the USSR, while most of the EU nations kept their military budgets small.

The EU also cannot guarantee that Europe’s prosperity will go on forever. With so many member nations, many of them devastated by decades of Marxist misrule, its capacity to hand out subsidies is running out.

The credit crisis has not finished yet, Western Europe is fast running out of its own energy supplies and the shift of economic power to the Far East is speeding up, not stopping.

The European nations have not worked out how to deal with the enormous Muslim minorities which they have encouraged to settle on their territory and which increasingly demand the right to live according to their traditions.

Nor can they stop the slide of the manufacturing industry towards the regions where labour is cheapest.

Germany, still in a sort of post-traumatic shock over the cost of absorbing the Communist East, may not forever be willing to share a currency – and so a joint bank account – with the poorer and less well-run nations of the Eurozone.

Hitchens (2):

... At the coming Election, refuse to vote for any of them, and do so in such numbers that they can no longer claim they have any mandate to rule, so that their zombie parties collapse in a heap of dust and worms, and we can start again.

The alternative is the accelerating death of our civilisation.

Hannan:

People often wonder why national leaders are so ready to hand their powers to Brussels. Each successive EU treaty has weakened national parliaments, yet each has been enthusiastically ratified by those same parliaments, often in overt defiance of public opinion.

What makes the politicians do it? [...] Perhaps – let’s be blunt – they are defying their electorates in the hope of getting lucrative positions in the EU when their terms expire.

I realise that this is a big claim. But, in ten years as an MEP, I’ve seen it happen time and again.

I’ve watched people arrive in Brussels as moderate Euro-sceptics, but change their views as their lips become clamped around the teat of the expenses. I’ve watched ‘No’ campaigners turn into Euro-enthusiasts after being given sinecures.

Now Tony Blair is plainly not in that category. He was a Euro-enthusiast to start with, albeit in a rather vague, pro-Italian-holidays kind of way. And he’s hardly poor...

No, the charge against him is not that he abandoned his beliefs, but that he abandoned Britain’s interests...

Could the issue of the [EU] budget have been linked in Blair’s mind, even subliminally, with that of the presidency?

... if Blair really did seek to buy the presidency with British taxpayers’ money, he was almost literally selling his country – and there is a very unpleasant word for people who do that.


For those who believe in history with a human face, perhaps this is a punishment, for believing we could create some small and imperfect version of an Earthly Paradise, where even the poorest man would have a voice in his government, and have hope to better his position in society; where the bully would be held back by fear of punishment, and the powerful restrained by the apprehension of condign retribution.

My wife says she feels aggression everywhere, people arguing with bus drivers that they shouldn't have to pay. I say the hungry sheep look up and are not fed; we are lost and leaderless ; those at the bottom of society live in fear of the future, despair, impotent rage, having nothing but meagre dole given them with grandstanding condemnation and impossible promises of opportunity.

Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help, said the Psalmist.

Le Prince d'Aquitaine à la tour abolie
These fragments I have shored against my ruins


It always ends in a building project, whether the new EU Parliament or Ceauşescu's Casa Poporului...














But that two-handed engine at the door
Stands ready to smite once, and smite no more




It's not for us to take up arms. Worldly powers will rise and fall. Our defence, and the future, is the family. That is the nearest we can have to the Earthly Paradise.

Saturday, September 19, 2009

And another thing

BBC economic journalist Robert Peston recently professed himself "nauseous" on reading of the paltry £9 million per head earned by the hapless Rover Four; yet when I read his book "Who Runs Britain?" this year, I failed to see him confess a similar gut reaction to Sir Philip Green's £1.2 billion dividend raid on Arcadia Group. (Actually, the money went to his wife, who is domiciled for tax purposes in Monaco, but that hardly improves the flavour.)

At the time, this monster cash extraction (done with freshly borrowed money) was more than three times Arcadia's operating profits, but I'm sure the banks that (expensively) approved the loans didn't care. And it was legal.

However, if, in the economic downturn, turnover and profits are savaged, and tangible assets decline sharply in value, and Arcadia becomes very weak, or even goes bust, what will Peston say then? Arcadia Group employs 27,000 people; was it really OK, other than in a strictly legal sense, to put such a heavy yoke around its neck? Had the dividend not been paid - and especially, not been funded by humungous bank loans - what more might the group have achieved? The consolidated balance sheet for 31 August 2008 is here; what will the 2009 one look like?



What are the implications for our so-called democracy when captains of industry become so gigantic, and the rest of us become relatively as insignificant as crablice?

Tuesday, September 01, 2009

What do our politicians control?

Plenty has been said about the EU and how it rules us, withour ever having had our consent to do so. But equally, our daily lives are governed by giant firms, often foreign-based.

For example, (and I offer this merely as a tiny, representative instance) I now have to pay a Frenchman to talk to a Welshman.

On September 8, 1966, the first (and very beautiful) Severn Bridge opened. It was constructed with the inventive help of the Royal Engineers (my father included), who floated prefabricated sections of the roadway on pontoons down the river, to be hoisted into position by cranes atop the towers that would hold the suspension cables.

I stood on the Welsh side with my mother and brother, listening to the Queen's speech from across the water, and watched as the Royal car came through. (Only a West Indian family near us had had the forethought to buy some flags on sticks to wave as Her Majesty passed.) The toll for cars was the then-equivalent of 35 US cents.

30 years later, a second bridge was completed, crossing further down the estuary to Cardiff and West Wales. A new holding company was formed (Severn River Cossings plc), as a partnership between John Laing plc, a French firm, GTM-Entrepose, and others.

John Laing plc is based in London and controls assets worth £698 million (December 2008 accounts); but the revenue from both bridges went to GTM-Entrepose which was subsequently taken over by Vinci Concessions SA, a subsidiary of Vinci SA, which controls assets worth almost 52 billion Euros and is based in Rueil-Malmaison, France.

The toll for cars is now £5.40 (you pay to get into Wales; any fool who wishes to leave can do so for free), and as late as last month there were protests that this highwaymanning is hampering trade and transport. But what, exactly, can the private citizen, the commercial haulier, or even the professional politican do? Doubtless any attempt by HMG to intervene would be challenged in a European court.

I think our national politicans are little better than a species of fraudster, pretending that they can do something for us but (I suspect) privately agreeing among themselves that they are powerless. In which case, all they can do is take instructions from their wealthy patrons and (perhaps partly out of impotent spite) divide and bully the insignificant people, some of whom (at permitted intervals, to be determined by their masters) vote them into office.
And now, I want to wave my little flag.

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Freedom and healthcare

I've just watched Daniel Hannan's address to Americans on the dangers of a nationalised healthcare system. I, too, want America to carry on holding up the torch of freedom and democracy that is being doused here in the UK, so that one day we'll be able to re-light ours from theirs.

But it seems to me that if you want private solutions for problems which all have (or will have), but not all can afford, then you must address the question of inequality of resources.

Peter Rogers, co-creator and producer of the Carry On film comedies, once remarked he would 'do anything for my actors except pay them.' Similarly, so much is done for us in the UK, perhaps so badly, in the way of health and education (to name but two functions), when it might work so much better if we had the money personally and could make our own decisions.

We are witnessing a concentration into ever fewer hands on both sides the Atlantic, not only of power but of economic wealth. Every dollar and pound is a vote in the daily election of goods and services. To use the terms of the French national motto, if we wish for liberty but mistrust fraternity, then perhaps we should contemplate some redistribution of wealth to restore a greater degree of equality.

For example, how about some form of credit card (funded from general taxation and directed to individual accounts) that can only be spent on defined areas of need, but the holder to determine how to use his/her budget to best effect? Something like the educational voucher idea, but radically extended?