It’s October, not August – or is it?

Within the field of politics it is generally accepted that August is the ‘silly season’, during which we are regaled with all the ‘wacky’ news and views both featuring those of whom we have heard and those of whom our first reaction is: who the hell are they.

We have only begun what may be termed ‘the phony EU Referendum’ period and already we have those with idiotic, unfounded and totally illogical views of what this referendum is about, spouting forth.

Joining the likes of Elliott, Rose, Farage and all the other comedic figures that are tryng to impress us with their knowledge (not) of ‘matters EU’, we now have Charlie Mullins and Caroline Lucas. To which all one can say to Charlie Mullins is: stick to plumbing (which presumably he knows something about – or not as the case maybe) because his article only exhibits what an ass/arse he is. For example, he claims that by ceasing our membership of the EU we would no longer have a place at the ‘top table – FCS, how can anyone ‘manage’ a company and not be aware of the origin of standards to which he has to adhere?

Turning to Caroline Lucas, one is tempted to paraphrase Richard Llewellyn and ask: how green is our Lucas? If this woman really wishes to know what democracy looks like then she ought to take a trip to Switzerland. Her ‘wish-list’ will never see the ‘light of day’ – mind you, having met her I doubt she even realises that; she is that much of an ass as is ‘our Charlie’ above.

Digressing slightly, I note the veiled criticism that in hoping it was possible to get the anti-EU faction together, speaking with one voice, it is now inferred that it was a tad naive on my part: Bluntly, it is little short of childishly naive to expect the different groups to collect together under one umbrella, and “play together nicely”, so that we can beat the big bad Europhiles, riding off into the sunset and living happily ever after (source). I still maintain that but for the egos of all those involved, that scenario could have happened.

On a similar note, if we are to selectively quote Winston Churchill (circa 1950), , then let us also consider (commences 5.24pm): To win the war we agreed to put our armies under S.H.A.E.F., a great Anglo-American organisation that was for the tactical and limited purposes prescribed. No one would ever have suggested that General Eisenhower should have had the power to say what units of the British Army should be suppressed or disbanded, or how they should be raised or remodelled, or anything like it. Or: I would add, to make my answer quite clear to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that if he asked me, “Would you agree to a supranational authority which has the power to tell Great Britain not to cut any more coal or make any more steel, but to grow tomatoes instead?” I should say, without hesitation, the answer is “No.”

We are also informed, those of us who consider ‘sovereignty’ to be important, that there is a need for us to ‘grow up’ and think twice about our obsession with sovereignty. Was not Churchill discussing ‘sovereignty’ in his remarks above? It will not have escaped the ‘eagle-eyed’ among my readers that he also ‘coined’ (next para of his speech) what I believe is the first reference to ‘associate membership’; but I digress even further. What is ‘sovereignty’ but the right of a nation to decide that which happens within its territorial boundary, coupled with its relationship with the rest of the world.

It is indeed not only odd, but also ironic, that castigation should be levied against those of us who believe in our nation’s sovereignty when FlexCit contains a section on that subject and one that comprises the Six Demands required by The Harrogate Agenda.

It is also obvious that we have entered a period of ‘claim and counter-claim’ by all sides of the argument; at which point I can only repeat the closing remarks of my preceding article.

When one ‘tunes in’ to this referendum debate/discussion it is impossible to forget a television series of the 50’s, called ‘Dragnet’. Its famous introduction, as it was supposedly based on fact, was that: Only the names have been changed to protect the innocent. When one listens to the ‘thrust and counter-thrust’ of the referendum protagonists one can be forgiven for thinking only the facts have been changed to protect the guilty.

It sure is a ‘topsy-turvy’ world in which we live………….

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 thoughts on “It’s October, not August – or is it?

  1. David
    I have a name for you , it’s an economist called Dani Rodrik he has developed a concept called the trilemma .The trilemma is simple; You can have democracy, national sovereignty and global economic integration but you can’t have all at the same time.I keep saying this ,but Flexcit seems to think different. Rodrik and other heterodox economist see sovereignty as crucial. The neo liberal economic orthodoxy, WTO,IMF,UNECE,etc, etc, are simply incompatible with direct democracy and THA.

  2. AW A very interesting theory and one that could be debated at length – but not here!
    For all practical purposes and in relation to the trilemma I think it is established that the ‘elephant in the room’ which continues its gate-crashing tendencies has already anticipated the theory and is putting it into practice.
    While the elephant is there, taking up all the room, there is little space left for either democracy or sovereignty in the room as we know! As for global economic integration, the the elephant is muscling in there too.

    As I have mentioned on Dr. RN’s blog IMO the essence of the coming Leave/Remain debate is primarily about national sovereignty (a certain level of democracy is assumed), because all other questions about policy hang on it.

    Its about national sovereignty being of supreme importance for, to state the obvious, all other powers of self governance relate directly to the UK’s ability to “decide that which happens within its own territorial boundaries” – which of course does not happen now, and must be reversed .
    Take some of the policy areas in which we have lost national sovereignty as the elephant continues to trample all over them – all very important for our governance and where sovereignty is denied.
    The CAP and CFP. Employment regulation, immigration (uncontrolled from the EU and likely to rise exponentially unless a change of policy), social policy, taxation in all its forms, (including the EU membership tax of about £19 Billion p.a.), Justice & Home affairs, (including the notorious European Arrest Warrant, energy policy, and every aspect of foreign affairs (including the outrageous absence of the right to determine bi-lateral trade agreements with who we like).
    Finally, and not least, the subjugation of the primacy of our centuries old Constitution and laws to that of the EU elephant. There is not much else left is there?
    It is for these reasons that the four demands in DC’s “negotiations” are so openly feeble, contemptible and insulting to us all in that he seems blissfully unaware of these challenges to even the most basic views of democracy and sovereignty.

    My own view expressed here before is that Flexcit’s massive 416 page dossier will be largely irrelevant in all this, and will remain so in the coming referendum debates, which will NOT be about its highly theoretical six stage withdrawal scenarios, even if they could reach the public ear, but simply ‘stay or leave’ .
    The KISS principle is as much needed now as ever in light of the wonderful theories now appearing.

  3. Graham
    Agreed KISS principal very important, however soonner or later we will be forced to except the trilemma and we will need to do something about it ,so the sooner we start to think about it the better.

  4. AW. ” sooner or later we will be forced to except the trilemma ” I think you mean ‘accept’ here?

    I think all three aspects will come to a head via the crucial decision which the electorate will make on the EU referendum. Either way the vote goes will be much more than a minor event, but either will produce potential explosions in our politics and governance for many years to come.
    IMO the issues of sovereignty and democracy will be immeasurably strengthened by a ‘leave’ vote, as I think we will agree. Once we have left the EU we will then be free to choose for ourselves representation on what global organisations we wish to join, and be free to form bi-lateral trading arrangements which best suit our mutual interests. China is a prime example.

    But, as an example of the horrific implications of a ‘remain’ vote we have only to face the reality of a massive rise of uncontrolled inward EU immigration into the UK if other member states simply issue their hordes of Eastern European migrants now flooding Europe with EU passports. There is nothing to stop them doing that.
    As Farage so often has pointed out, neither could the UK government under present EU “free movement of peoples” principle do very little about that.
    Of course the British people do not want immigration on that scale and that itself would be both a denial of democracy and the exercise of national sovereignty.

    In addition, to remain in would bring with it the possibility of having almost ANY other mad EU policy imposed upon us in the future – with the riposte ‘well you voted for it in 2017!
    In the end it will really be up to the electorate to carefully think through the main related issues of both democracy (why should the EU override our people and parliament) and sovereignty (why should our government and parliament retain an obligation to a self generated and self perpetuated 1950s bureaucracy which does not serve our national interest?)

  5. “Bluntly, it is little short of childishly naive to expect the different groups to collect together under one umbrella, and “play together nicely”, so that we can beat the big bad Europhiles, riding off into the sunset and living happily ever after (source).” I still maintain that but for the egos of all those involved, that scenario could have happened.

    It is very possible to expect “the different groups to collect together under one umbrella”. If the electorate had one voice on this matter, they would demand that collaboration from the very outset – and insist any group declining to willingly participate drop out of the field completely and not divert and sabotage the debate owed to them.

    The obstacle to this scenario is not so much the “egos of all those involved” but the so-called ‘exit plans’ those egos have bolted together for use on the rapidly approaching referendum battlefield. All of them are unfit for purpose and betray a woeful failure in reconnaissance of the actual terrain upon which their various owners are demanding they be set.

    Reliable, thorough and accurate reconnaissance does exist and can be found at the ‘Exeunt’ website. Anyone familiarising themselves with this actual topological detail will quickly determine that no ‘exit plan’ is required at all… in fact the presence of one will only be a severe (and likely fatal) impediment to the coming fight.

    This recent article provides a detailed evaluation of the ‘Flexcit’ exit plan in relation to the provisions made available in Article 50… http://exeunt.co.uk/flexcit-and-article-50/

Comments are closed.