Friday, 31 January 2020

EU: "This blessed plot* -" an interlude.


31st January, 2020

Day of shame, day of sorrow, day of humiliation.  The day we detach ourselves from a serious attempt at civilised progress.  A day our government of  deceivers  "celebrates" with the issue of a tin-pot 50p coin which, in my youth was worth 10 shllings (serious money) and is now the equivalent of a threepenny-bit.** Says it all.

First, let’s be clear about with what we’re dealing.  This is a coup d’état.  We normally think of these being violent, or involving the military, but this is a coup nevertheless.  A  small group, but backed by enormous wealth and a supportive press have taken over the reins of the state to further their own ends. 

You  This group has never accepted the decision to join the EU, they’ve simmered in the background (John Major’s “bastards.”), supported a populist UKIP party and poisoned the press against the EU over a long period.  The three major parties have helped by using the EU as a scapegoat for unpopular decisions   Even we Liberals/Liberal Democrats have been complicit in this.  We hardly get “We are in favour of the EU” out of our mouths before there’s a  " . . .but."
“. ”
 Alarmed by a haemorrhage of support to  UKIP an overconfident David Cameron decided to finesse them with an “In-Out” referendum. Even though it was technically “advisory” he made the constitutionally invalid promise that the result would be observed, ”No ifs, no buts.”

Again all parties were complicit in this irresponsibility. No Liberal Democrat, in the Commons or the Lords (with lawyers on £300 a day just for signing in!) came forward to demand a super-majority, agreement of all parts of the UK, or any other normal safeguard such as any run-of the mill golf club or music society would include on any major decision affecting its constitution

A flawed referendum, an electorate in which the most affected were excluded,  lies and misrepresentation, illegal expenditure and possibly foreign involvement to destabilise the country, led to a narrow but apparent victory for Leaving.


For three years, in spite of some of the largest demonstrations and petitions in our history, the Commons failed to own up to its ineptitude and decide to repudiate the result of the flawed referendum, but kept on digging to find a way of squaring the circle of respecting the tiny referendum majority  while minimising the damage to the country’s economy, reputation and participation in the politics of the wider world. 
  
Despite flagrantly abusing the constitution and brushing aside its accepted conventions, thus bringing an end to the “good chaps theory of government,” the chancer but proven election winner Johnson took advantage of a weak opposition, what appears to have been a bribe to the Brexit party leaders, (we shall see),  and failure to form a “Remain” alliance and, although polling only 47% of the vote against 53% of the combined Remainers, has been returned with a Commons majority of 80 or so.  A condition of fighting as a Conservative was apparently a pledge to support Johnson on Brexit.  The clique’s  position seems impregnable. 

 We must not give up hope.

The UK's basic problem is that, whereas most if of the remaining 27saw joining the EU as a success, for Britain it was an acknowledgement of failure.

  For the original Six, after the second bloody war in half a century, it was an attempt to so integrate the countries of the continent  to make future wars impossible.  For Spain, Portugal, Greece and the Eastern European countries, joining the EU was an acceptance that they had successfully thrown off authoritarian dictatorships and become respectable democracies.

At the beginning, the formation of the European Coal and steel community in 1951, Britain  stood aloof. It might even be argued that at the Messina Conference which  led to the Treaty of Rome  and at which the UK was represented not my a minister but by a middle-ranking civil servant, a Russel Bretherton, we actually tried to frustrate progress.  However, the conference was successful and in 1957 the Six went ahead.

As the economies of the Six forged ahead and Britain stagnated, it took only four years for us to realise our  error, and in 1961, under the Conservative Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, the British government applied to join.  After protracted negotiations, in1963 the French President Charles de Gaulle said "Non", and again in 1967.  

In 1970,under the Conservative PM Edward Heath, the UK made its third a application and, possibly because by this time de Gaulle had retired, ir was were third time lucky and were welcomed into the club on 1st January 1973.
Sadly we have never been more than a semi-detached member, more sulking on the side-lines than giving enthusiastic support.  Sections of the Labour Party, which became the government in 1974, wanted to pull out, and Prime Minister Harold Wilson "settled" the matter by having a referendum, in which the "people's will" proved to be to Remain by a majority of two to one - a much more solid seal of approval than the narrow 52/48% margin Leave achieved in 2016.

Our politicians in the mid 20th century would dearly have liked the UK to "go it alone."  They reluctantly realised that was not feasible.  Alone we were then still "a leading power of the second rank" but sinking slowly.  In the EU, together with our neighbours, we could still retain a seat at the World's top tables.

Prime Minister Johnson thinks that by optimistic bluster he can reverse history and that a soar-away  Britain will flourish alone.  I believe he is wrong.  We shall certainly survive and we shall remain rich by World standards.  We could all be comfortable if our national wealth were fairly shared.  But we shall gradually slip from being a "leading power" down to the third or fourth rank, in thrall to the US (effectively a 51st State?), China, India and, of course the EU itself.  

It will not be sudden - more like a slow puncture:  economically, culturally,  and politically we shall become less and less significant

Bur as time goes by those not allowed to vote in 2016, those deluded by false promises, the young deprived of a truly international future, will gradually form a more convincing majority.

The mission for we Remainers is to keep the flame alive.  

We must hammer away at the fact that Johnson's claim to be implementing  "the will of the people" is fraudulent and purely the result of our crude electoral system.  Of course, we shall be mocked as "bad losers" but both time and logic are on our side. In the long run , and before we're all dead,  Victor Hugo's prediction:

"A day will come when you, France; you England; you Germany; all you nations of the continent, without losing your distinct qualities and glorious individuality , will merge into a higher unity  and found the European brotherhood."

will again be fulfilled. It will be a sisterhood too, and I hope include Scotland and Wales and all of Ireland.

Roll on

*The delightfully ambiguous title "This blessed plot" is borrowed from the late Hugo Young's excellent account, subtitled : "Britain and Europe from Churchill to Blair" published by Macmillan, 1998

**  For younger readers: there were 12 pennies (d) in a shilling (s) and 20 shillings in a pound (£).   A threepenny- bit was a brassy-looking coin slightly smaller that the present  pound coin, and,  as far as I remember, with 12 sides. So there were four 3d "bits" in a shilling and each one was worth one 80th of a £ (compared with the current 50p, of which there are two to a £).  But you could buy quite a lot with a 3d bit: eg  ice-cream a bag of chips and around four miles-worth of bus-rides.

PS.  (added 1st February)  This letter from a Dave Skinner, was published in the Guardian  on 31st January.  It is a brilliant description of how we have arrived at the present mess.

"I am sad to see the UK leaving the EU, as are large numbers of my European colleagues.  I am British and have worked for the EEC - and then the EU - since I graduated in 1973.  I retired several years ago.  I remember the positive buzz in the early years of membership.

But then the rot set in.  The UK began to think it was special, too good for the rest of them.  Money back, opt-outs and so on.  In the 1980s we saw the beginning of Euromyths and the media enthusiasm for Brussels- bashing.   UK governments did not have the courage to emphasise the benefits of membership, and even laid the blame for many of their own unpopular decisions on the EU.  The British Public still think that "health and safety" is an EU invention.

This arrogant trend finally resulted in David Cameron's pusillanimous referendum.  The campaign was ridiculously vague, based on lies, and serious malpractices have still not been investigated.  The last three years have been a misery for those of us who know the reality (and were not allowed to vote in the referendum)  and had to listen to the lies spouted about the organisation we have been proud to work for.  

The outlook for the UK is not good.  The brave new world the government is promising could well become the desperate flounderings of a has-been island.  What a waste."


11 comments:

  1. I now hope the party can push positiveness, NO BUT'S,into rejoining. The elephant in the room is how hard do we push. Each time the UK comes up with a deal we can comment that in the EU that deal is better(hopefully). By pointing out what we have lost the wheel could turn.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agree we have to be positive. Point out how much better the deal we had or would have had with the EU is or was better than what we now have to accept from the US, china, India, the EU itself, or anyone else.

      But also point out to the point of boredom that the hi-jackers of the constitution are not carrying out the people's will or anything like it.

      Delete
  2. A small group

    A small group of 17 million…

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Read it all:
      A small group, but backed by enormous wealth and a supportive press have taken over the reins of the state to further their own ends.

      Delete
    2. If by the 'small group' you mean people who wanted the UK to leave the EU, there were 17 million or so of them.

      I'm still waiting for my cheque for that 'enormous wealth' by the way.

      Delete
  3. The UK began to think it was special, too good for the rest of them. Money back, opt-outs and so on.

    Um. The 'money back' was because the Common Agricultural Policy was set up to benefit French farmers; in effect British taxpayers were subsidising the maintenance of the French countryside. It's pretty obvious that is not what the British pay their taxes for, so getting that money back hardly seems objectionable.

    And the opt-outs were for areas of policy that were properly the domain of national governments, that a supranational organisation had no business interfering in, like employment rights, working times, justice policy and so on. So again, I don't see how you could object to those sorts of things, unless you were perfectly fine with the idea of a 'United States of Europe' where the federal government had authority to overrule constituent nation-states, as in the USA.

    But I remember being told during the referendum that there was no need to vote to leave to maintain British national sovereignty because a USE was never going to happen. So if there were no plans for a USE, how can anyone object to us having opt-outs on things that were clearly no business of the EU?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Money Back. Of course the original EEC signed up for systems which suited the original SIX. Germany, and maybe the Benelux countries and Italy, were willing to do a very favourable deal for French agriculture in exchange for unimpeded access to the French market for their manufactures. As explained above, the UK stood aloof from these negotiations. Then, after we joined the Club, moaned and banged out handbags because the rules didn't suit us.Typical misplaced arrogance.

    Employment rights working times etc. All part of a "level playing field" when creating a single market for capital, people, goods and services. Cuts out the "race to the bottom" which has so impeded development in may developing countries. We're going to hear a lot more about this.

    Justice: The European court of Justice (ECJ) simply deals with matters affecting the EU's rules. It does not interfere with domestic "justice" other than on matters which affect the "level playing filed." Are you confusing the ECJ with the European Court of Human Rights, a body with is entirely separate and of which we were a founder member long before the EEC/EU was created?

    And finally, remember," No man is an island unto itself" It's a big wide world out there and we cannot escape connections with it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Then, after we joined the Club, moaned and banged out handbags because the rules didn't suit us. Typical misplaced arrogance.

    Hardly 'misplaced'. The rules didn't suit us (because, as you admit, they were designed to benefit the French) and when they came up for negotiation we used our leverage to have them changed. That's how such transactions are supposed to work, isn't it?

    Employment rights working times etc

    Yes — all things which are rightly the business of individual nations. If the population of an nation wants to gain a competitive advantage over other nations, why shouldn't it?

    Are you confusing the ECJ with the European Court of Human Rights

    No, I am not. I was referring to, inter alia, protocols 30 and 36 (article 10) of the Treaty of Lisbon, and their predecessors.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As far as I can make out these protocols are mostly concerned with data sharing and co-operation in order to combat crime and terrorism. Both are international and need international measures to defeat them. Again "No man (or island, for that matter) is an island unto itself."

      Delete
    2. Protocol 30 is our opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and (apart from a very few clear-cut cases like the right to life or banning imprisoning people for their religious or political views) what rights are 'fundamental' is something which is rightly the business of individual nations to decide (for example, the USA thinks is it a fundamental right that people be allowed to bear arms, and we don't; therefore that sort of thing should be decided on a per-country basis by the people of each country, not by a supranational body).

      Protocol 36, article 10, is our opt-out from things like the European Arrest Warrant, which unfortunately we let lapse as it was our protection against being extradited to states where the justice systems are not as fair and un-corrupt as ours (for example, that poor girl who was forced by the Cyptiot police to withdraw her allegations of rape, and then herself prosecuted into the bargain — she would not even have been safe had she made it back to the UK, thanks to the crazy European Arrest Warrant system that would have let the corrupt Cyptiot courts demand her return without our courts having any say in the matter).

      So, no, nothing to do with the ECHR (which I know has nothing to do with the EU) and all to do with things that ought to be decided at a national level and not to be the concern of supranational bodies.

      Data sharing and co-operation in order to combat crime and terrorism, of course, just like the ECHR, has nothing to do with being in the EU. Our most vital intelligence-sharing relationships are with countries that aren't even in the EU.

      Delete
  6. Your Affiliate Money Printing Machine is ready -

    And making profit with it is as easy as 1, 2, 3!

    Here are the steps to make it work...

    STEP 1. Tell the system what affiliate products you intend to promote
    STEP 2. Add PUSH BUTTON TRAFFIC (it LITERALLY takes 2 minutes)
    STEP 3. Watch the affiliate products system explode your list and sell your affiliate products all on it's own!

    Are you ready???

    Your MONEY MAKING affiliate solution is RIGHT HERE

    ReplyDelete