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
Comment
- Daily Mail, May 31, 2005
Even
now, not a shred of genuine humility can be seen in Brussels.
Faced with a most shattering setback to the EU in half a century,
Commissioner Peter Mandelson loftily suggests that at some stage
the French could hold a second referendum to ensure a yes vote.
'No single member has a veto over a constitutional treaty of this
sort,' he declares blithely (and inaccurately).
Meanwhile,
Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt insists that 'the French
referendum should not be considered a vote against Europe -- the
French do not want less, but more Europe'. And at the Commission,
a spokeswoman asserts that 'just because one country has said
no, it does not call into question all EU policies .. efforts
will have to be made to explain things more clearly to citizens'.
The patronising assumption, of course, is that the pitifully misguided
voters need to be told what's good for them.
Europe's
political classes are in denial. For decades, they've marched
triumphantly towards ever-greater union, brushing aside all objections.
Now, for the first time, they face a major democratic obstacle
to their grand project. And they don't know how to cope. For this
isn't little Denmark or pushover Ireland, nations that could be
browbeaten into changing their minds when they had the effrontery
to say NO (to the Treaties of Maastricht and Nice respectively).
This
is mighty France, motor of the EU, political inspiration behind
the whole deal, leader of the pack. When such a major founder
member rejects a constitution that was supposed to bring the people
closer to the institutions of Europe, it's an unmistakable sign
of something fundamentally wrong. Yes, of course it's true that
there were huge domestic influences at work in Sunday's vote.
The incompetent and sleazy Jacques Chirac is heartily disliked
by his own people. There is deep prejudice in France against the
prospect of Islamic Turkey joining the EU. And there is fear that
hard-working Poles and Czechs will take French jobs.
But
bloody-mindedness, hostility to impoverished foreigners, opposition
to free-market 'Anglo-Saxon' economic policies aren't the only
reasons for this revolt. The French are reflecting the deep loathing
existing everywhere for the remote, arrogant, frequently corrupt
elite that runs the EU. Tomorrow, for example, if (opinion) polls
are to be believed, Holland will also reject the constitution,
though for very different reasons'
If
the French want more regulation from Brussels to protect their
feather-bedded jobs, the Dutch (like the British) think there
is far too much interference already. But behind their differences,
these countries share a deep sense of alienation. Grinding unemployment
and stagnation have been miserable facts of life throughout much
of the EU for more than a decade. And they've been made much worse
by mismanagement of the single currency and incompetence of the
European Central Bank.
The
one-size-fits-all monetary policy and an over-valued euro are
seriously undermining the economies of the eurozone at the very
time China and India are opening up a new age of cut-throat international
competition. Yet the sclerotic, sleazy bureaucracy of Brussels
offers only more regulation instead of desperately-needed reform.
And it isn't just in France and Holland that the project is in
trouble. The coming referendums in Denmark, Poland and Czech Republic
could also spell bad news for an unloved, clumsy and opaque institution.
That
is to say nothing of what is likely to happen in this country,
if ever the issue is put to a vote. Indeed, according to latest
polls, even europhile Luxembourg now seems disenchanted. Whether
the political classes admit it or not, the federalist cause is
in crisis. So where do we go from here?
In
Britain, the French vote may have a significant impact on the
leadership of both main parties. Until now, it has been assumed
that Tony Blair might seize the opportunity of next year's promised
referendum - win or lose - to stand down and allow Gordon Brown
to take over at No 10, Today that convenient exit strategy has
gone. Mr Blair now faces the miserable prospect of taking over
the EU Presidency in July, followed by six months of exhausting
diplomacy to find some way out of this mess.
Not
only will all this divert his attention from the much-trumpeted
initiative on Africa, but it may further strain relations with
his restive Chancellor, who no longer has any clear idea when
his chance will come.
And
Tories? The situation there is just as intriguing. For if the
seemingly unstoppable European train really has hit the buffers,
is there any longer a compelling argument against the fervently
europhile Ken Clarke as a potential leader?After all, he has never
shown much enthusiasm for the constitution as opposed to the euro.
The battle for the succession to Michael Howard might - just might
- become even more interesting.
But
the wider, much more important issue, of course, is what EU's
political classes do now. And as they struggle pitifully to pretend
that it's business as usual, signs are that yet again they are
looking for ways to push the federalist cause. Leave aside Mr
Mandelson's breathtakingly arrogant suggestion of another referendum
in France. If the Dutch also vote no tomorrow, that option simply
won't apply, because it would be seen across the whole of Europe
- rightly - as an outrageous affront to democracy.
But
Brussels has other ways to get what it wants. There's already
talk of using the constitution's 'Declaration 30', which says
that if four-fifths of member states ratify the document, EU leaders
should discuss ways of implementing the treaty. And if that can't
be managed, other devices come into play. Whole chunks of constitution
could simply be adopted by agreement, without any reference to
the voters.
Indeed,
the scandalous truth is that it is happening already. This constitution,
for example, authorises the creation of an EU foreign ministry
and diplomatic service, the harmonisation of criminal justice
across the continent and a so-called Charter of Fundamental Rights.
But the political elite didn't bother to wait for a vote. They
simply went ahead in advance of referendums they expected to win.
So
will they now dismantle this huge extension of bureaucracy - for
which we're paying, without our consent? Of course not. Yesterday
the EU's 'foreign minister', Javier Solana, insisted that Europe's
new diplomatic corps would continue. And there isn't a hope that
the other federalising measures will be withdrawn either.
This
is the undemocratic reality of the institution we joined more
than 30 years ago, on the assurance that it was no more than a
Common Market with no implications for our sovereignty. From that
day onwards, successive governments have dragged us closer and
closer into the orbit of Brussels, while consistently misleading
the public about the consequences. And now there are disturbing
signs that it is happening again.
That
is why Britain must have its own say. Unless a second major EU
says NO, it is all too likely that we shall lose more independence
via the back door. This should be an opportunity for the public
and politicians to re-examine the whole thrust of the European
project and to reaffirm the principle of public consent. We all
need to know precisely where we stand.
Though
Tony Blair has repeatedly promised there will be a British referendum,
irrespective of what happens elsewhere, it would surprise nobody
if he now goes back on his word. The French decision gives him
a convenient excuse. He certainly doesn't relish the prospect
of a campaign he is likely to lose.
But
this issue goes far beyond the convenience of a here today, gone
tomorrow Prime Minister. It goes to the heart of our democracy
itself. In the public interest, Mr Blair must honour his pledges
and allow British people their first referendum on matters European
for 30 years.
If you have suggestions
for additional subjects, or material to include in the pages linked
to the subjects listed, please contact
the webmaster.
