Rescuing
Democracy in the United Kingdom from our current Elected
Dictatorship
|
Spin,
not face-to-face confrontations with the voters, is the
Government's chosen method of communication. Ordinary people
are dangerous. Ordinary people might ask a question which
throws a politician 'off message'; the Cabinet member might
reveal himself or herself to be a human being like us, and
not a programmed android. Worse still, he or she might tell
the truth.
Ann
Leslie - Daily Mail, September 16, 2004
Blair
wants to leave his mark on history - looks more like a stain
to me.
Peter
Thorndyke, Diss, Norfolk - Daily Mail, May 23, 2005
|
May
11, 2005 (741 days since war ended)
Death
Toll: 1,610 US - 88 UK - >6,164? Iraqi - >17,300 civilians
- 25 media
May
31, 2005 (761 days since war ended)
Death
Toll: 1,657 US - 89 UK - >6,164? Iraqi - >17,300 civilians
- 25 media
Britain
has traditionally been one of the biggest net contributors
to the EU because we do not get as much money back from
Brussels in farm and regional subsidies as our rivals.
According
to Treasury figures, between 1995-2002, Britain's average
contribution taking the rebate into account, was £2.6billion,
or £43.55 per head of population.
The
French - the biggest recipient of farm subsidies - contributed
£1billion a year or £16.08 per head of their
population.
|
Forget
the French . . . . it is now more vital than ever that we British
have our say
Time
for reflection
(Translation:
time for deception)
Stephen
Glover - Daily Mail, May 31, 2005
France,
which loves liberty, has spoken. French people have voted by a
decisive majority against the European constitution. This should
be a moment for rejoicing. The designs of the European and French
political establishment have been rejected. Hurrah France, thank
God for the French.
President
Jacques Chirac must be kicking himself for calling a referendum
he did not have to. His object was to embarrass and weaken socialist
opponents, divided over the constitution. In the event this oily
fixer has succeeded in embarrassing himself.
Yet
I feel little joy at the outcome, nor should anyone who has looked
at the history of the European Union. Tony Blair and Foreign Secretary
Jack Straw say they and other European leaders need 'time for
reflection'. In this context 'time for reflection'
means 'time for deception'.
Do
we honestly believe that Europe's leaders and the single-minded
bureaucracy of the European Commission are going to accommodate
reservations of the French? When Danes voted against the Treaty
of Maastricht, they were told to go back and think again. When
Ireland rejected the Treaty of Nice, they were asked to have another
shot. Both nations did what was expected of them.
Oh,
I know that France is a much bigger country and that it cannot
be so easily bullied. It is also improbable that President Chirac
could call another referendum before his term expires in 2007,
and win it. He is highly unpopular and unlikely to risk what remains
of his reputation on so doomed a venture.
But
that does not mean that some way will not be found to circumvent
the will of French people. We should, in this regard, be grateful
to Peter Mandelson, European Commissioner for Trade. In his enthusiasm
for a more integrated Europe and his disdain for the opinions
of ordinary people, Mr Mandelson is the personification of the
new class of European politicians. Yesterday morning on Radio
4's Today programme he spoke with a refreshing candour on behalf
of his colleagues.
Of
course the BBC itself was in a state of mourning, reporting the
result of the French referendum as though it constituted the end
of European civilisation. In its most important interview slot,
the Today programme wheeled out outrageous French far-right leader,
Jean-Marie Le Pen, who had campaigned for a NO vote. The implication
was that only a combination of lunatic Trots and nasty fascists
had defeated the forces of reason. But many of the 55% voting
against the proposed constitution came from the middle ground
of French politics.
For
his part, Mr Mandelson was not prepared to concede that the French
vote was decisive. It was 'a time to
reflect very carefully' (i.e. the agreed response of
most European leaders) but 'no single
state has a veto over a constitution of this sort'.
France would have to reflect upon its decision and 'possibly
come forward with a different view'.
He
could have hardly been clearer. Mr Mandelson was saying that the
European constitution would have to proceed in one form or another
and that the French would have to accept it - or something very
lime it - if they wanted to remain members of the European Union,
which they plainly do. The expressed will of the French people
might be noted, but in the end it would change nothing.
But
why rely only on Mr Mandelson? Luxembourg's Jean-Claude Junker,
the current President of the European Council, has already said
that if the French said OUI, European integration would proceed,
and if the said NON, European integration would also go ahead.
We should also thank him for his frankness.
No
one can say how European leaders will recast the provisions of
the rejected constitution. I don't suppose they have yet completely
worked it out. They may genuinely need 'time for reflection'.
But it would certainly be possible to introduce many of its measures
piecemeal and without the need for contentious referendums.
For
example, the two exisating posts of commissioner for external
relations and so-called high representative could be easily combined
into a single job of European foreign minister, envisaged in the
constitution, withut many people noticing. The constitution envisages
creation of European diplomatic corps, but in fact some EU countries
are already pooling their resources to create shared diplomatic
missions. Much of what is in the constitution could be carried
on by stealth, or through smaller and less high-profile treaties.
Many
European leaders are probably already regretting something so
grand and explicit as a new constitution was ever devised in the
first place. It was bound to stir up oppostion. Integrationists
normally advance in small, furtive steps rather than in very public
giant leaps. We have the nucleus of a European Defence force without
the issue ever having been put to the British or French people.
So
the reaction of Europe's political elite to Sunday's apparent
setback will be to proceed more cautiously and clandestinely towards
the same ends. That is why I am not rejoicing. It will take much
more than a defeat in one referndum to reverse the momentum of
50 ears and the best efforts of thousands of very clever and highly
determined men and women to create a united Europe.
They
are expert at appearing to make concessions that amount to nothing.
During the negotiations before the Maastrict Treaty, John Major
boasted that he had succeeded in removing the 'F word' - i.e.
'federalism'. Maybe, but one outcome of Masstricht was that the
European Community was re-named the European Union. What is a
union if it is not a federation?.
As
a result of the NO vote, there will be a good deal of bogus genuflection
towards the idea that the French people have spoken, but don't
be taken in. these Euro enthusiasts are oligarchs, rather than
democrats, and they are certain they know better than the French
people what is good for them.
Mr
Blair will almost certainly call off next year's promised referndum
on the basis that the constitution is dead and there is no point
in voting on it. But the spirit behind the constitution lives
on. In 30 years we have evolved from a Common Market of still
largely independent states into an embryonic superstate withut,
at any time in the case of Britain, ever being consulted about
ii. Might we not carry on for another 30 years in a similar way?
Our
response might be that the result of the French referndum is only
the first counterblast against a European p9olitical class that
thinks it knows what is best for us. Let's hope that the will
of the people cannot be constantly flouted and that the Euroeanelites
who persist inbiolding their new superstate without regard for
popular support will in the end be defeated.
But
I wouldn't count on it. Don't underestimate the determination
or guile, or indeed the strength of vision, of those who want
to build a united Europe. The French people have spoken. Now watch
their their will being ignored.
If you have suggestions
for additional subjects, or material to include in the pages linked
to the subjects listed, please contact
the webmaster.
