I note that Oliver Norgrove has recently had two articles in the MSM; one in the Daily Telegraph and t’other in the Guardian. As a Senior Citizen, of some seniority now, I feel able to state that I have been following the writings of ‘young Norgrove’ for some time; and as a result, hold him in high regard.
In his article for the Guardian he writes that he is tempted to vote for Labour in view of the intransigence of the Conservatives for a ‘Hard Brexit’. He writes: The result of all this is that I’m likely to vote Labour at the next general election. I have soured against a Tory party that is extremely close to wrecking a political endeavour I will defend until my dying day……But in all this there is opportunity: to switch tack and opt for pursuit of European Free Trade Association membership, as advocated by the Efta president, Carl Baudenbacher. If Labour was to do so, they could highlight the absurd hypocrisy in the Tories claiming to be the party of economic strength whilst they drive us unnervingly towards a cliff edge. It’s a move that would attract huge support in more metropolitan and remain-supporting pockets of the country – precisely the areas Labour will need to appeal to if it is to have a chance of a majority at the next election. Business will also take note, bewildered at the very real prospects of a default no deal or stunted trade flow that a Tory Brexit might cause. The Norway option is Labour’s chance to restore public faith in its capacity to build a strong economy.
It is here that is met the dilemma that every voter faces under our current system of representative democracy: namely to have to choose one policy offered by a political party that appeals, while having simultaneously to swallow many more policies from the same source that amount to an anathema of one’s core belief(s).
As has been pointed out on this blog many times I, like Oliver Norgrove, have long been an advocate of FlexCit (longer than he, but I digress) which has been the only viable plan whereby disengagement from the European Union, with the least disruption possible, can be achieved. Much talk is made by the political commentariat and politicians, when discussing Brexit, of ‘Sovereignty’; of being able to form our own laws without ‘outside interference’.
For anyone who has an understanding of the source of ‘standards’ and ‘laws’, they will be only too aware that the majority of the foregoing originate via bodies of the United Nations; in fact only about 20% of those come from the European Union. It therefore stands to reason that while a nation may have ‘absolute’ sovereignty, if they wish to progress in the world – ie, trade – they are going to have to accept ‘outside interference’.
One of the problems with the ‘Brexit debate’ is that I am unable to think of one politician who has one iota of understanding about ‘matters EU’. This is compounded by our having a leader of one of the main political parties who believes that to participate in the Single Market one needs to be a member of the European Union – and this man wishes to become our prime minister and people would vote for him? That is a prime example of why this nation of ours is in the mess, politically, that it is – ie we, the people, allow ourselves to be governed by ‘know-nothing’ politicians; and having elected them we have no control over them for the period of any parliamentary term.
To repeat an often made complaint on this blog regarding FlexCit, it is the fact that ‘sovereignty per se’ is relegated almost to an afterthought in FlexCit. I am at a loss to understand the logic whereby the statement that there is not much point in our nation regaining its democracy only to hand it back to those that gave it away in the first place is relegated to that of the least importance. Had the ideals of direct democracy been promoted with the same fervor and intensity that was accorded Brexit, it is reasonable to assume that our nation would not be in the dilemma that we are with Brexit; and that the people would have been clamouring for the means whereby their voice could/would be heard.
In conclusion I am surprised that all those who have read – and favour FlexCit and also favour a change in our system of democracy – have allowed themselves to be persuaded that Stage 6 is Stage 6. It would appear that in accepting FlexCit – as when we joined the European Economic Community (EEC) – we are being asked to ‘swallow the lot and swallow it now‘.