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.
Tuesday, May 05, 2015
Monday, May 04, 2015
Why we SHOULDN'T vote Conservative (just for the sake of an EU referendum)
Influential blogger Richard North thinks our best chance of an EU referendum is to vote Conservative this time. I think he is mistaken.
EU-skeptics like me like to think that if British people properly understood the EU and were given a chance to leave, a majority would vote to take it. So it's easy to be convinced that what we need is another referendum as early as possible.
But everything depends on how well the people are informed. Look at what happened in the 1970s. According to Albert Burgess, the media were carefully steered to foment approval of EU membership:
But how to do it? First, organized breakfast meetings at the Connaught Hotel in London; these meetings were attended by Government Ministers, MPs, the British Council for the European Movement and top people from ITV, the BBC and the national newspapers. At these meetings the media people were persuaded to remove all their front line anti-EEC reporters and to replace them with pro-EEC reporters.
They set up a department in a back room of Chatham House where five people wrote thousands of letters all purporting to come from people like you and me, every letter saying what a great idea this EEC was; but the IRD did not have a facility to distribute them, so they were distributed to the central offices of the Conservative, Labour and Liberal parties and the British Council for the European Movement. They got them signed and sent to the letters pages of the news outlets. By this method they completely skewed the public’s perception of what was best for the Kingdom and themselves and their families.
Well-known author Vernon Coleman says what happened at that time in the Press, in "How The British Media Lied And Tricked Us Into Joining The EU" - see the "Politics" page on his website here. (Hat-tip to "JD".)
Would we get more balanced coverage now? I doubt it.
Look for example at the strange behaviour of the Mail on Sunday. Followers of anti-EU Peter Hitchens have noted that his regular Sunday column failed to appear yesterday, and there was no explanation why. Hitchens himself tells enquirers on his blog that he is "unable to comment," and has resorted to republishing his anti-Cameron, anti-New Tory pieces from 2010 (here and here) and (today) 2007. I can't wait to see what he would have said in print yesterday if allowed, but maybe we'll never know.
Things often go wrong when you redefine a problem in terms of a proposed solution. Think of the Marx Brothers' "Animal Crackers":
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.
Tactical voting is tricky and really if EU-skeptics had never voted for the Referendum Party and later UKIP, I very much doubt that EU membership would ever have registered with politicians as an important issue. And those who compromise their beliefs are compromised in debate when challenged on consistency. I'm still haunted by Steven Glover's Mail article (16 April) in which he says of UKIP's manifesto:
"... this is for the most part a carefully reasoned, practical and candid document. There is nothing remotely ‘fruit-cakey’ about it. It has the merit of being more specific than the manifestos of the three main parties. I am sure many millions of voters would agree with most of it. I certainly do... come May 7, like many millions of others I will be placing my ‘X’ elsewhere without much confidence that my hopes and aspirations will ever be reflected."
I emailed Glover on the 19th, saying:
"Why not vote for a manifesto that is in your opinion practically flawless? You and I are the same age, I believe (b. 1952) and have seen the two major parties ruin Britain between them over more than 40 years. Is it not a good time to vote on principle?"
Alas, no answer yet.
One of the reasons Glover gives in his article is the First Past The Post system and how that affects results, which is I suppose why he and others think we need to vote Tory simply to stop Labour. Yet as Hitchens asserts, there's not much difference between the two and increasing numbers of people hate both, hence the hung Parliament.
The key to unlock this problem is electoral reform - again. Have a look at this startling letter in today's Mail:
If the number of seats in the House of Commons reflected what is predicted about GE votes cast nationally, at c. 11% UKIP would have something like 70 MPs after May 7. And if people thought their vote really mattered, doubtless voter behaviour would change accordingly and maybe the EU-skeptics would have a really major party representation in the HoC. As it is, it's not certain that even Nigel Farage will win his seat (though Iain Dale thinks so - see #13 here).
What would make electoral reform more likely? Yet another hung Parliament, perhaps worse than last time. SNP have been snubbed by Labour, and are themselves snubbing the Tories, though we'll see how their line changes when the results are anounced.
If you must vote tactically, vote in the way that you think most likely to lead to No Overall Control. For if one party can command a majority, we're back to the same old rotten game as before.
But if you vote for what you don't believe in, don't be surprised if that's what you get.
The road to freedom is longer and harder than some of us thought.
And that's just the start. For believers in nation-based democracy, the EU is merely a regional campaign, compared to the issue of global governance and the tsunamis of money and multinational corporate trade that are roaring across the world, smashing down all opposition with no thought of the end-state of the world's economies and polities.
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-skeptics like me like to think that if British people properly understood the EU and were given a chance to leave, a majority would vote to take it. So it's easy to be convinced that what we need is another referendum as early as possible.
But everything depends on how well the people are informed. Look at what happened in the 1970s. According to Albert Burgess, the media were carefully steered to foment approval of EU membership:
But how to do it? First, organized breakfast meetings at the Connaught Hotel in London; these meetings were attended by Government Ministers, MPs, the British Council for the European Movement and top people from ITV, the BBC and the national newspapers. At these meetings the media people were persuaded to remove all their front line anti-EEC reporters and to replace them with pro-EEC reporters.
They set up a department in a back room of Chatham House where five people wrote thousands of letters all purporting to come from people like you and me, every letter saying what a great idea this EEC was; but the IRD did not have a facility to distribute them, so they were distributed to the central offices of the Conservative, Labour and Liberal parties and the British Council for the European Movement. They got them signed and sent to the letters pages of the news outlets. By this method they completely skewed the public’s perception of what was best for the Kingdom and themselves and their families.
Well-known author Vernon Coleman says what happened at that time in the Press, in "How The British Media Lied And Tricked Us Into Joining The EU" - see the "Politics" page on his website here. (Hat-tip to "JD".)
Would we get more balanced coverage now? I doubt it.
Look for example at the strange behaviour of the Mail on Sunday. Followers of anti-EU Peter Hitchens have noted that his regular Sunday column failed to appear yesterday, and there was no explanation why. Hitchens himself tells enquirers on his blog that he is "unable to comment," and has resorted to republishing his anti-Cameron, anti-New Tory pieces from 2010 (here and here) and (today) 2007. I can't wait to see what he would have said in print yesterday if allowed, but maybe we'll never know.
Things often go wrong when you redefine a problem in terms of a proposed solution. Think of the Marx Brothers' "Animal Crackers":
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.
Tactical voting is tricky and really if EU-skeptics had never voted for the Referendum Party and later UKIP, I very much doubt that EU membership would ever have registered with politicians as an important issue. And those who compromise their beliefs are compromised in debate when challenged on consistency. I'm still haunted by Steven Glover's Mail article (16 April) in which he says of UKIP's manifesto:
"... this is for the most part a carefully reasoned, practical and candid document. There is nothing remotely ‘fruit-cakey’ about it. It has the merit of being more specific than the manifestos of the three main parties. I am sure many millions of voters would agree with most of it. I certainly do... come May 7, like many millions of others I will be placing my ‘X’ elsewhere without much confidence that my hopes and aspirations will ever be reflected."
I emailed Glover on the 19th, saying:
"Why not vote for a manifesto that is in your opinion practically flawless? You and I are the same age, I believe (b. 1952) and have seen the two major parties ruin Britain between them over more than 40 years. Is it not a good time to vote on principle?"
Alas, no answer yet.
One of the reasons Glover gives in his article is the First Past The Post system and how that affects results, which is I suppose why he and others think we need to vote Tory simply to stop Labour. Yet as Hitchens asserts, there's not much difference between the two and increasing numbers of people hate both, hence the hung Parliament.
The key to unlock this problem is electoral reform - again. Have a look at this startling letter in today's Mail:
If the number of seats in the House of Commons reflected what is predicted about GE votes cast nationally, at c. 11% UKIP would have something like 70 MPs after May 7. And if people thought their vote really mattered, doubtless voter behaviour would change accordingly and maybe the EU-skeptics would have a really major party representation in the HoC. As it is, it's not certain that even Nigel Farage will win his seat (though Iain Dale thinks so - see #13 here).
What would make electoral reform more likely? Yet another hung Parliament, perhaps worse than last time. SNP have been snubbed by Labour, and are themselves snubbing the Tories, though we'll see how their line changes when the results are anounced.
If you must vote tactically, vote in the way that you think most likely to lead to No Overall Control. For if one party can command a majority, we're back to the same old rotten game as before.
But if you vote for what you don't believe in, don't be surprised if that's what you get.
The road to freedom is longer and harder than some of us thought.
And that's just the start. For believers in nation-based democracy, the EU is merely a regional campaign, compared to the issue of global governance and the tsunamis of money and multinational corporate trade that are roaring across the world, smashing down all opposition with no thought of the end-state of the world's economies and polities.
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.
Another difference of opinion with Dr North
 |
| Choose! (pic source) |
I've read a number of similar hold-your-nose-and-vote-Tory pieces recently. Tired of holding my nose. Besides, it'll all be like Wilson in 1975: pro-democracy in Opposition and recommending a yes to the EU when returned to power, threatening us with the loss of "FOOD and MONEY and JOBS" if we said no - I promise you that's a quote from the 1975 Labour referendum pamphlet. Vote compromise, get sellout. We're stuffed without electoral reform, yet that cat isn't going to bell itself. Only crisis - Britain becoming unable to form a stable government, the EU collapsing - holds out the prospect of change.
Your's is a recipe for sitting on your backside and waiting for things to happen. And then, if things don't work out the way you want ... what then? What if the EU doesn't collapse ... what do you do? And what's your timescale?
Saturday, May 02, 2015
A lot of what is published is incorrect
 |
| source |
Via the k2p blog. The Lancet recently published a piece about a symposium on the reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research, held at the Wellcome Trust which begins :-
“A lot of what is published is incorrect.” I'm not allowed to say who made this remark because we were asked to observe Chatham House rules. We were also asked not to take photographs of slides. Those who worked for government agencies pleaded that their comments especially remain unquoted, since the forthcoming UK election meant they were living in “purdah”—a chilling state where severe restrictions on freedom of speech are placed on anyone on the government's payroll. Why the paranoid concern for secrecy and non-attribution? Because this symposium—on the reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research, held at the Wellcome Trust in London last week—touched on one of the most sensitive issues in science today: the idea that something has gone fundamentally wrong with one of our greatest human creations.
Every now and then we hear these whispers about the untrustworthy nature of science and scientists, how too much scientific research is junk aimed at more funding and fashions rather than the advancement of human knowledge. Understandably the problem seems to be causing significant anxiety in medical fields, hence the symposium and the Chatham House rules.
Yet it is extremely difficult for anyone to put some kind of scale on the problem. There is a problem I'm sure, but how significant is it? To my mind it's another of those areas where we should do our own research and reach our own conclusions. Here's another quote:-
The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put it, “poor methods get results”.
All the scientists I ever knew were decent people who would not compromise sound science. Times change though. During my working life bureaucracy, political fashions and the power of money became ever more important.
Good scientists retired and numerous external pressures began to dominate the agenda. The integrity of the individual scientist gradually became unimportant, ineffective against a swelling tide of political, bureaucratic and financial exigencies. Finally :-
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.
Nicola Squidgeon predicts result of General Election
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.
Thursday, April 30, 2015
North begins at Crich
 |
| Crich Stand source |
From the Guardian we learn that the north of England begins at Crich in Derbyshire.
People find it very hard to agree on the exact point where the north of England begins. This is one of the north’s defining characteristics: it doesn’t matter which part you come from, there’s always someone more northern to tell you what a soft southern moron you are. In my mind, the north starts at the village of Crich, in Derbyshire.
In which case I must be a southerner as I can see Crich Stand (not Tower) by gazing roughly due north from the end of our street. Or I could until a new storage shed blocked the view. Now I have to walk a little further.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)