The EU vote, Post #31 | Your Views

Dear fellow "referendees"

The "six-of-one-half-a-dozen-of-the-other" arguments about trade; immigration; security; jobs etc highlight the cluelessness we feel about the day to day practical implications of staying with or leaving our European neighbours. I'd like to step back a bit and think about what it is we're actually wedded to.

You may have seen this already. It speaks to my principal objection to the "remain" argument - namely that it is more effective and sensible to try to reform the EU "from within" rather than leave the building in a huff.

I hark back to our noble Prime Minister's recent dismal results after a strenuous and protracted round of negotiations with EU grandees which yielded, I think we can agree, the square root of naff-all in terms of meaningful structural reform. The blindingly obvious fact is that it is impossible to get 28 people to agree on anything without unacceptable watering-down compromises (dinner time at home is a daily salutary reminder of this universal truth). It is abundantly clear, therefore, that the EU is un-reformable in any fundamental way as it is currently organised and that any significant restructuring is snookered by the "28 in agreement" requirement. All the Turkeys (literally!) won't vote for Christmas! The EU has been deliberately designed to be impregnable to the inconveniences of normal democratic change and to be controlled by unelected officials.

I'd like to be persuaded otherwise but the fear tactics currently being deployed by the remain camp merely strengthens my conviction that, like the Wizard of Oz, the scaremongering response to a possible Brexit from the EU Politburo (including the UK) is an elaborate facade erected to protect over-paid and self-serving bureaucrats who are genuinely afraid of being revealed for what they are; individuals who are interested only in maintaining the status quo because they benefit hugely from the EU project even as it steams unswervingly, like the Titanic, towards the iceberg of fiscal collapse. (that's quite enough mixing of metaphors - ed)

From Frederick Forsyth Express article 11/03/16

A long time ago a very wise old man advised me thus: “If ever you are confronted by a highlycomplex situation and a decision cannot be avoided, never rush to an earlyemotional judgment. Subject the subject to the four-pronged ARID. It stands forAnalyse, Research, Identify and then Decide.” We all now face the decision: should we continue as obedient membersof the EU or should we sever the link? Let me try to apply the old man’sadvice.

Any country other than a shambolic anarchy must have agovernment. That said, most governmental systems end with the five-letter “cracy” derived from the Greek for “rule”. There are about 10. We knowabout autocracy, rule by a single tyrant. There is theocracy, rule by thepriestly caste, such as Iran. Add stratocracy, rule by the army (Egypt)and plutocracy (by the very rich). We have seen gerontocracy, with the reins ofpower in the hands of the extremely old - the Soviet politburo in its lastdays. And aristocracy, rule by the nobles, long gone. But two are with us and visible. One isbureaucracy, government by the officials, the constant competitor for powerwith rule by the “demos”: the people.Democracy. It is by far the hardest to establish. It is the most fragile,the easiest to fake with rigged elections, meaningless ceremonies and elaboratecharades. I estimate about 100 phoney democracies worldwide. But ours isparliamentary democracy so let’s give it a glance. Of course it isindirect. We cannot expect the electorate to go to the polls for every tinydecision. So we divide the country into 650 constituencies with one MP foreach. The party with the most MPs in Westminster governs for five years. At thepinnacle is the Cabinet and, with encircling junior ministers, forms theGovernment, which I will call the power. But there is more. The power isheld to account, not five-yearly, not annually or monthly but every day. Doingthis is the official Opposition but also the backbench MPs even of thegovernment party. This “holding toaccount” is vital. Assisting these critics is hopefully a free and unafraidpress.

I have travelled very widely, seen the good, the bad and the very ugly andhave come firmly to the view that with all its flaws the British parliamentaryform of democracy is the best in the world. Not for those in power but for thepeople who between elections still have a voice. It is against this templatethat we can judge the system of the EU.

R

Just after the war a group of men, politicians, thinkers,intellectuals and theorists, formed around Frenchman Jean Monnet, becameconvinced that what they had witnessed at close quarters - the utterdestruction of their continent in a vicious war - must never, ever, happenagain. It was not a bad view-point, indeed it was a noble one. They thenanalysed the problem and came up with two solutions. The first was that thevarious and disparate nations of Europe west of the Iron Curtain must somehowbe unified into one under a single government. They accepted that this mighttake two, even three generations but must be done. This was not an ignoblevision. It was their second conclusion to which I take exception. Thewhole group was mesmerised by one fact. In 1933 the Germans, seized by rabidnationalism, voted Adolf Hitler into power. Their conclusion: the people, anypeople, were too obtuse, too gullible, too dim ever to be safely entrusted withthe power to elect their government. People’s democracy was flawed andshould never be permitted to decide government again if war was to be avoided.Real power would have to be confined to a non-elective body of enlightenedminds like theirs.

In the 70 years since, the theory has never changed. Itremains exactly the same today. The British Cabinet has power and may delegatethat power to a wide range of civil servants: police chiefs, generals,bureaucrats. But it itself remains elective. The people can change it via thepolling booth. Not in the EU. The difference is absolutelyfundamental. They realised, those founders, that there would have to befaçades erected to persuade the gullible that democracy had not been abolishedin the new utopia. There is indeed a European Parliament - but with adifference. In London it is the Commons that is the law-giver, the UpperHouse is the vetting and endorsing chamber. In Brussels the EU Parliament hasno lower house, it is the endorsing chamber. It ratifies what the real power,the non-elective European Commission, has decided. The broad masses wouldalso have to be convinced that the purpose of the Monnet utopia was economicand thus about prosperity. This untruth has prevailed to this day and is themain plank of the establishment propaganda in our present British decision-making. In fact the final destination of the EU is entirely political. It is thecomplete political, legal and constitutional unification of the continent ofEurope into a single entity: the State of Europe. This clearly cannot make waragainst itself, thus guaranteeing peace. Albeit without democracy.

It is amazing how many intelligent people have fallen for this fiction.Thus David Cameron can tell us with a straight face that he repudiates thethree pillars of the EU - the doctrine of even closer union, a single externalborder but no internal ones (Schengen) and a single currency (eurozone) - butstill thinks we will sit at the top table. He believes the EU is about tradeand tariffs. No, that’s what we thought we joined.

I

Back in the 1960s one British premier (Macmillan) afteranother (Heath) came to the view that with the empire departing into independenceand the USA becoming more protectionist our economic days were numbered. If theworld beyond the oceans was not communist it was Third World, meaningimpoverished. Both premiers became convinced the future lay east acrossthe Channel. Back then the union was six countries: Germany, France, Italy,plus minnows Holland, Belgium and Luxembourg. Wealthy, especially Germany,booming. Just the trading partners we needed. So under Heath we joinedthe Common Market. As a trading nation for centuries we were delighted to doso. Then the lies began. It would never go further, we were told. The Sixbecame the Nine but all in western Europe. Heath lied to us. He said there would neverbe any question of “transfer ofsignificant sovereignty”. He had read the whole Treaty of Rome. No one elsehad. He knew this was just the tip of the iceberg.

Then in 1992 came the Maastricht Treaty. We were told it was just tidyingup loose ends. More lies. It was transformational. It created the EuropeanUnion. Slowly, decree by decree, rule by rule, law by law, our ancient right togovern ourselves the way we wanted to be governed and by whom was transferredfrom London to Brussels. Today 60% of all laws are framed in Brussels, notLondon. The lies multiplied. The entire establishment, much espoused ofpower without accountability, has become hugely enamoured of the newgovernmental system. Less and less need to consult those wretched people, thevoters. It is no coincidence that the five professions that worship power- politicians, bureaucrats, diplomats, quangocrats and lawyers, plus the twothat lust for money, bankers/ financiers and tycoons - today constitute almostthe whole of the stay-in campaign. Almost to a man. And the liesproliferate. “There is no intention to proceedto a superstate.” Really? Read the Treaty of Rome. That is the whole pointof the EU. What is not said is that in a unified continent there can be noplace for the independent, autonomous, self-governing sovereignnation/state. The two are a contradiction in terms. Only here in the UKis that denied. In Brussels it is accepted as wholly obvious. “The end of nation” is regarded as awork in progress. Endgame is foreseen as a decade, maybe two.

D

The referendum decision of June 23 will be the last ever,the decision permanent. So this is your choice. This is about the country inwhich we will spend the rest of our lives, the land we will pass on to ourchildren and grandchildren. What kind of a country, what kind of agovernmental system? People’s democracy or officialdom’s empire? Our right tohold power to account or just two duties: to pay and obey? For me it is simpleand takes just five words. I want my country back.