REFERENDUM CONUNDRUM

Someone who supports Remain in the issue of membership of the institutionally undemocratic EU, is happy with the idea that the people's vote shouldn't matter.

So why would they vote in the 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.

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.

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.

Like I said

May 10, 2010:

"Now, for a short spell, Clegg's playing with the big boys, and they're going to have his marbles and the bag they came in...

"The best that can be hoped for by Nick Clegg, I think, is to do a Blair: sell out to powerful interests who will springboard him into some position less vulnerable to the people's franchise. Perhaps the reward for his long service to Europe will be a seat on the European Commission [...] He, and ultimately his descendants, will be accepted into that modern equivalent of the Hapsburg dynasty that is the nascent power support structure of the EU.

"Or maybe he'll stand his ground, and watch his party get whittled away back down to six seats, a fate David Steel vividly remembers."

Ok, eight seats, but close. Now looking out for the "reward for his long service to Europe".


May 4, 2015:

"We're getting hung up on "referendum now", but until we can secure fair treatment of the issue over-eager Ukippers will be like turkeys voting for an early Christmas. Voting Tory falls into Cameron's trap, and he'll delight in setting up a sure-fail referendum campaign, with the eager assistance of "it's about leadership, Aleisha" Milliband (see that link from 47:03) and College-of-Europe-graduate Clegg."

Ok, Milliband and Clegg have gone, but the outline prediction remains the same. Cf. Peter Hitchens today:

"As for the famous EU referendum, who really thinks that the propaganda forces which got Mr Cameron his unexpected majority won’t also be activated to achieve a huge vote to stay in the EU? And then the issue will be closed forever."

Some may be gloating (a word they use themselves); my mood is elegiac.



"After the battle, at the request of the mortally wounded king,
Bedivere throws Excalibur back to the Lady of the Lake."

(pic & quote: Wikipedia)

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.

EU debate: JD weighs in

Here is something to think about. On local TV the other day the UKIP candidate for one of the seats up here (can't remember his name) said "Nissan threatened to pull out of the UK if we didn't join the Euro. We didn't join and they didn't leave."

Correct and shows the propaganda machine in action on behalf of the CBI and other business leaders. (*see note below)

The same propaganda is in full swing again about how disastrous it will be if we leave the EU. Are they crying wolf again?

Probably, but there again I started wondering after I read this in last night's paper -
http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/nissan-could-face-battle-investment-9175512

The interesting thing is that Nissan is 43% owned by Renault and Renault is 20% owned by the French State, recently increased from 15%. Apart from the obvious question of why state ownership works in Europe and not in the UK and why we allow foreign state ownership/participation in our railways and power generation etc., my thoughts were that the French government would put pressure on Nissan via Renault to ensure that the cars were built in France should the UK decide to leave the EU. I wonder how many other businesses that might apply to?

Anyway, I think this comment to the article sums up our cynical attitude to politics and politicians-

Dave R • a day ago

Yes lets scrap the EU and go back to having wars instead. they are more fun and cost less, mind we have just finished paying for the last one, so maybe I'm wrong and its cheaper being in the EU.
My thoughts above are based on my personal observations; working for a French construction company in Spain I noticed that the hire cars we were using were all French makes. And specialist subcontractors were brought in from France even though I knew that the Spanish subcontractors were better. The German companies I have worked for do the same sort of thing - they source from their own first before looking elsewhere. (British companies never do that, they will always go for the cheapest option rather than the best option.)
________________________________________________

* Note: I saw Digby Jones on telly a while ago complaining that British people don't speak foreign languages and so British companies lose out because of it. The interviewer didn't ask the obvious question - "How many languages do you speak Digby?"

And it isn't true. The vast majority of British people working abroad can speak the local language. I have even met a few in the Middle east who were learning Arabic not because they needed it for work but because they wanted to learn it.

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.

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.

EU: we're stuffed

"David Cameron has said he would be “delighted” to stage an early referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU, if the Conservatives get voted into power in the general election next May." - The Independent

"... if the Conservatives get voted into power": read carefully. A Conservative majority in Parliament is simply not in prospect. The vote of "Eurosceptics" (i.e. believers in democracy) is being bought with the political equivalent of Toytown money.

The only way we would get a referendum is through cooperation between certain parties. And that isn't going to happen either.

A couple of days ago a comment here by Paddington directed us to the Shapley–Shubik power index, an analysis of how votes relate to the power to carry or block motions. In the footnotes of the Wiki article linked above, there is a site that offers different ways to calculate that power.

Here's one program: ipdirect. And here are the results using Electoral Calculus' forecast of Parliamentary parties post-May 7th:

A combination of two players out of Con/Lab/SNP gets a score of 1.0, i.e. complete power. Basically, whoever the SNP sides with.

So Labour (no EU referendum) plus SNP (no EU referendum); or Conservative ("Didn't really promise a referendum, did I? You should learn to read") plus SNP (no EU referendum).

And in any case, Ms Sturgeon has sworn not to deal with the Conservatives.

And in any any case, the puzzled and gullible electorate would probably vote to stay in (I would say, join, legally speaking), according to "EU Referendum", who himself would rather trust the Conservatives than deal with nasty Mr Farage.

In any any any case, the campaign would be so skewed and misreported that, just as in 1975, the people wouldn't have a clue what they were voting for.

We're stuffed.


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.

Is our EU membership ultra vires?

Dr Richard AE North is a distinguished blogger and writer, but I do not entirely share his distaste for UKIP, of which he was once (like Professor Alan Sked) a key mover and shaker.

It seems that like many others, Dr North finds constitutional objections to EU membership as irritating as a gadfly. Here's a recent exchange:

[from the main body of his post] To this sad, dysfunctional crew, the EU treaties are "illegal" and those who signed it are "traitors". Any idea of negotiation or agreement is an anathema. They would sooner see the British economy crash and burn than accept a deal with Brussels.

[Me] Bit tendentious. I do indeed argue that UK entry into the EU in 1973 was ultra vires. Why that should make me sad and dysfunctional I'm not quite sure...

[Dr North] This is exactly what I mean .... apart from the fact that we didn't enter the EU in 1973 (or the EEC for that matter), the entry was in accord with our constitutional arrangements. Why does it matter so much that you need to assert that it is "ultra vires"? It isn't...

[Me] But we did enter the EU and didn't know it. We were told it was simply a trading arrangement and didn't know about the commitment to "ever-closer union". But Macmillan, Heath and others did know, because they got legal advice that told them of the constitutional implications. And we do have a constitution, one that very specifically forbids ceding any sovereign power to anyone outside the country. So yes, it was and is ultra vires. The referendum didn't validate the change because again the prospectus was false. If this seems like a boring legal point then let us have done with law - which is a trend I see here and elsewhere.

Constitutional argument is currently raging - among those who read, rather than play computer games - in the USA also ("Washington's Blog" is a good place to start). For example, under the US Constitution - at least as it used to be - Congress declares war, not the President.

It is a bit odd that a passionate democrat like Dr North, who espouses the direct-democracy "Harrogate Agenda", should dislike those who point out that here as in the US, constitutions - the foundations of legislation and power, the source of their legitimacy - have been snipped through like the string on a child's balloon.

For all its many faults - and no human institution is free of fault, as doubtless Dr North will discover if ever the Harrogate Agenda should come to be implemented - UKIP is gaining support because people are becoming aware how radically disenfranchised we have become, and how money and power are clearing away the last obstacles to their unrestricted global rule.


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.

Could the law order a fresh Scottish referendum?

 

http://i4.dailyrecord.co.uk/incoming/article4265480.ece/alternates/s615b/1.jpg



On 15th September 2014, the leaders of the three largest political parties in Westminster made and published the above "vow".

I understand that when a contract is negotiated, any oral explanation, or additional undertaking given as a condition of agreement, forms part of the contract, even if it is not in the wording on the page.

So this "vow" must be considered as an integral part of the referendum held by the Scots. A vow is a binding commitment and for me the implication is that by making it the British Government has turned the No decision into a legal contract between itself and the Scottish people. If it fails to keep these promises in full, then the contract is invalidated and Scotland will be entitled to a fresh 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.

Like I said...

‘What price the union?’ said one senior Conservative MP angered by the last-ditch offers to the Scots. ‘And why is Gordon Brown the tail-wagging Westminster dog?

 

‘Nobody wants to cause trouble ahead of the referendum but these panicked offers mean Alex Salmond has won whatever the result.’

- Daily Mail, 16 September 2014

"I think it's coming anyway. The panic last-minute promises from HMG are a gift to the Yes camp, who can say, "Would they have offered these concessions if they didn't think we'd leave; will they keep their promises if we don't?"

"Then later, if the promises aren't kept, it'll be let's vote again, now we know; and if the promises are kept, then it'll be like one of those I-need-some-space "trial separations" that end in divorce proper.

"Salmond's done it, with the assistance of an incompetent and negligent Westminster."

- Broad Oak Magazine, 9 September 2014

Ye heerd it here fust.


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.

#indyref - accusation of vote-rigging in favour of No

Genuine? If so, on what scale?

htp: Karl Denninger


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.

"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.

No deal

A samizdat on Europe

How many Internet users in the UK, with their own printer at home or permitted some private use at work?

So, never mind the Lisbon Treaty, that sly strategy to get us into the bedroom on some basis other than the consummation of marriage? Is it not time to seek democratic legitimation of the UK's membership of the EU per se?

Why can we not design and post up a form - a petitition for a referendum, for printing-off and taking round for signing by work colleagues, friends and neighbours? With a request that everyone follows suit - downloads, prints, distributes and posts into a central address?

Or even an unofficial, but fairly-worded referendum itself?

Or are we indeed "entering a post-democratic age?"

A winning move for New Labour?

What if New Labour's next General Election manifesto were to contain a pledge to hold a straightforward, binding referendum on British membership of the EU?