Tag Archives: Sovereignty

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………….







The EU is indeed the least of our worries

Nearly four weeks ago Richard North wrote an artice about the extraordinarily complex structure of that regulatory environment, which encompasses national, EU and global regulation. It would appear that ‘private reguators’ are not the only ones who operate outside democracy.

An artice in thestar.com (Canada) – lets face it, the content of the article is way above the intellectual capabilities of the UK edition – hints that the recent trade deal twixt Canada and the EU is far from a ‘done deal’; and that it also has implications for the US-EU trade deal (which has yet to be finalised).

It appears that the ‘fly-in-the-ointment’ is a section in both the Canadian and draft U.S. treaties giving non-judicial trade panels the authority to overrule laws — including those dealing with environmental protection — that interfere with the profitability of foreign corporations. The Canadian Star reports that Canadians are already familiar with this system, as a similar chapter in the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement has been used successfully by U.S. companies to overrule Canadian federal and provincial laws.

Adding to the assertion of the Canadian Star is an article in Common Dreams, one which goes into greater detail how non-judicial bodies, and thus giant transnationals, have been elevated above the sovereign powers of nation states. From this article we are informed:

With international “free trade” agreements such as NAFTA, GATT, and FTAA, the giant transnationals have been elevated above the sovereign powers of nation states. These agreements endow anonymous international trade committees with the authority to prevent, over­rule, or dilute any laws of any nation deemed to burden the investment and market prerogatives of transnational corporations. These trade committees–of which the World Trade Organization (WTO) is a prime example—set up panels composed of “trade special­ists” who act as judges over economic issues, placing themselves above the rule and popular control of any nation, thereby insuring the supremacy of international finance capital. This process, called globalization, is treated as an inevitable natural “growth” development beneficial to all. It is in fact a global coup d’état by the giant business interests of the world. Elected by no one and drawn from the corporate world, these panelists meet in secret and often have investment stakes in the very issues they adjudicate, being bound by no con­flict-of-interest provisions. Not one of GATT’s five hundred pages of rules and restrictions are directed against private corporations; all are against govern­ments.

Do read the whole of the last link to the Common Dreams article. While I have yet to check out the veracity of the factual content of this article, if non-elected committees are able to prevent, over­rule, or dilute any laws of any nation, then wherefore democracy per, especially when refusal to change its laws when a WTO panel so dictates, allows the WTO to impose fines or international trade sanctions, depriving the resistant country of needed markets and materials? What price then when our politicians grandly inform us they govern our nation?

Bearing in mind that sovereignty is the ability of a nation to decide that which happens within its territory and to make its own decisions as to how it will interact with other nations, then it would seem obvious that it is not just the EU to whom sovereignty has been ceded – but also to our burgeoning ‘world government’.