Is Dan Hannan with us or agin us?
Here he is on September 29th, 2008:
Replacing EU membership with a Swiss-style bilateral free trade accord …
Here he is on November 29th, 2009:
I’d abolish the Common Agricultural Policy, thereby giving a greater boost to Europe’s economies than any number of bail-outs and stimulus packages. Scrap the directives that tell us what hours we can work, what vitamins we can buy …
The European Commission could then be reduced to a small secretariat, answering to national ministers. The European Court of Justice could be replaced by a tribunal that would arbitrate trade disputes. The European Parliament could be scrapped altogether.
You will, of course, have spotted the flaw in my plan.
Yes, we have spotted it and it doesn’t look good at first sight.
Now Dan, you more than anyone have seen what happened at the protest in the parliament, the way you were stood over and vilified, the way they handle their politics, the underhanded and secretive manner, the draconian laws at the ready, the regions in England ready to become operational.
And yet you suggest remaining inside and trying to change the very people we’re up against – changing their minds? Since when has the EU ever relinquished a power it had subsumed? Since when did it ever say to a British politician: “You’re right and we’ll restructure and reform within three years, just because you asked us to?
I’m at a loss how to react to this seeming naivety. It smacks of toeing the Cameron line, truth be told. Since when was it a wise policy, as mice, to remain within the cat’s reach and to plead with it not to eat us?
We need out of the EU because it is a ravening monster. We want a referendum on in or out. David Cameron has said we’re not going to get either and you, Dan, have said very little about which way you’re newly committed.
Would you please clarify where you stand on both the referendum and withdrawal from the EU?
Filed under: Life issues & people, Politics & economics
My reading of Daniel Hannan’s article of 21st November (we have not yet got to the 29th November, so it was easy to spot that one) is that reforming the EU to make it acceptable to him (primarily by stopping it doing a great many of the things that it does beyond free trade) will not work. This is because it has become, in my words, a self-serving highly anti-undemocratic political oligarchy. Mr Hannan’s words are slightly different: “You will, of course, have spotted the flaw in my plan: it would put an awful lot of Eurocrats out of work. Which, sadly, is why it won’t happen. For, whatever the motives of its founders, the EU is now chiefly a racket: a massive mechanism to redistribute money to those lucky enough to be on the inside of the system.”
Thus Mr Hannan sees the EU as not amenable to reform, so (presumably in his view) the only real option for the UK is withdrawal, to some less embracing European club along the lines of free trade, as he describes in both of his articles, though in different ways.
Daniel Hannan is, IMHO, by far the most significant UK politician to be consistently (and also politely with much rational argument) in favour of UK withdrawal from the EU. James’ call to him to phrase his views precisely according to the wishes of James and others (the Albion Alliance) is actually a call for Mr Hannan to shout unpleasantly right into the face of the leader of his political party. I’m pretty sure that will do no good for the cause of EU withdrawal, because it will do even less for the useful political influence of Mr Hannan.
Best regards
Yes but useful political influence with whom, Nigel? If it is taking a position which does not get us out of the EU, it is no Eurosceptic position. You mention “the wishes of James and others (the Albion Alliance)” which, as it is only a reaction and embodiment of grassroots opinion which has been expressed across the web, is hardly James’s idea but he is just a willing party adding to the groundswell of opinion in this country which Dan appears to be now flying in the face of.
We’d like to see this clarified. “We” mean the people of this island and if their opinion is not as expressed in AA, then AA will go no further and will wither away. However, as it is not doing that and as the meeting last evening shows, when everyone presented reports, this thing is moving out into the community now.
AA is based on a ridiculously simple premise: if we’re barking up the wrong tree, then we’ll go no further. If we represent the thoughts of many people, then we will. I for one and perfectly happy for that to happen either way.
Thanks, Nigel.
Those who don’t wish to rock the boat, or whose aim is to largely preserve the status quo, tend to submit ineffectual ideas, which are bound to fail. Then they can say that they have tried.
Thereby, they hide their affiliations and hypocrisy.
I like and respect Dan, and it might well be that his hands are tied and he is unable to submit an effective policy, at this time, without subjecting himself to a call for his ousting.
Perhaps he’s hanging on with a view to staging an effective assault on TPTB when the political landscape is more likely to produce a desirable outcome. I suspect that this is the case.
It makes the big parties look good to have a few outspoken ‘mavericks’ in their ranks. It gives the impression that it’s worth sticking with the system, working from the inside.
It may be that you’re damned if you do, and damned if you don’t, but, truly, what is the point of staying in the tory party, when it is clear that they will change nothing with respect to Britain’s position in the EU? The tories are just as much the enemy as labour. Hannan will not be dictating policy to Cameron’s clique. He is either a captive, who needs rescuing from the tory party, or just a distraction.
Cameron is every bit as much the enemy as Bliar or McSnot – he’s proved that over the last couple of weeks. What many of us always suspected has now become a fact.
At the heart of all this is a huge democratic deficit that should concern everyone in the EU, not just the UK.
The Europhiles would have you believe that we are so tied by law into the EU that it cannot possibly be reversed. I have though heard no such argument being made in relation to the devolution of powers to Scotland, Wales and NI, where the relationships and laws are far more tightly intertwined. With these it seems to be so quick and easy, but with the EU …….. ?
We are being lied to and forced down a path which will lead us into a virtual undemocratic slavery. Forget Hannan, he looks good on YouTube but has no substance in power to change anything.
We must all keep on pointing out the flaws in the EU system (and the UK for that matter) and fighting for true democracy. But this must be done by reason and proper political action, not the usual blogging way of personal abuse and vitriol.
I take all those points but Jeff is right that we must point out to the people about this. This has been a flaw in AA – we were discussing it this evening – we are not putting the argument clearly enough but rather are assuming that people see it. We’re redressing it.
As I read and re-read Hannan & Carswell’s The Plan I can now see that it is a ‘democratic’ plan not for the UK, but for an EU consisting only of Regions, post National parliaments. A deeply entrenched Communitarian empire offering a faux democracy only at the local level is something reminiscent of the Soviet form of ‘democracy’.
As it is a plan to reform localism within regions of the EU, (but as Hannan has now admitted it cannot happen, as quoted by Nigel Sedgwick above), what purpose is being served by these ‘progressives’ other than to distract.
Whilst The Plan has many good elements they are only valid if they are introduced for the right reasons, unless it is unequivocally aimed at a UK outside of the EU, Dan’s motives will always remain suspect. So I agree with James, Dan must climb down off the fence and declare himself.