nourishing obscurity

This post comprises the comments section of a previous post on the EU.  I’ve selected comments addressing the specific issue and these form the new post here.  The comments section of the other post has now closed.

First, from Damian Thompson:

Friday’s New Statesman carries a ComRes poll that will make interesting reading for David Cameron. Three quarters of his prospective parliamentary candidates want to renegotiate the UK’s relationship with Europe “as a matter of priority”. And 91 per cent favour a cap on immigration. Meanwhile, only 28 per cent believe that the next government should legislate to make people behave in a “greener” way.

1. Devil’s Kitchen, on February 24th, 2010 at 18:54

   I shall post about this at more length, but I am sorry to say that you have utterly—and dishonestly—misrepresented the Libertarian Party’s policy. [My note - this is where I have dishonestly misrepresented LPUK] Our policy—as stated very, very clearly here in the manifesto—is as follows:

   “The Libertarian Party would take the UK out of the European Union. There are a myriad of reasons why straightforward trading arrangements with our European friends would prove economically more beneficial to UK citizens and businesses than full membership, but purely financial matters should not be our overriding concern. What really matters is our sovereignty—the ability for the UK to make its own decisions in its own interests. We find ourselves today in a position where EU law takes precedence over our own, and where EU rules and directives control the daily lives of UK citizens.

   “Incredibly, it would actually be legally impossible for the Libertarian Party to implement much of the manifesto that you are now reading if we remained within the EU—even something as fundamental as our national VAT regime is now determined at a European level. Whilst the UK remains part of the European superstate, it is largely irrelevant which party is elected to Westminster; the hands of our national politicians are tied by the faceless bureaucrats in Brussels. That’s simply ridiculous, and we believe that decisions about how the UK is governed really belongs to one group of people, and to those people alone—the citizens of our country.”

   We don’t want a referendum—we want out. If people vote for LPUK, it should be taken for granted that they are voting to leave the EU.

   We don’t make a massive thing of it because we don’t want to be perceived—as UKIP are—as a single-issue party.

   DK

2. James Higham, on February 24th, 2010 at 21:52

   Thanks for dropping by, DK and setting the record straight. Now, let’s examine the charge of “dishonesty”.

   At the 2009 LPUK conference, you announced that you believed that we should not revisit this [an EU Referendum] for 5 years or so.

   You did say that – it’s on the record. Not only did you state that but the other day, your deputy wrote on this site that in fact the policy is and let me quote:

   With respect I told you that a one issue pressure group such as the Albion Alliance over Europe was too early, too public and not going to get any traction.

   The EU is an issue, where we disagree is that it is not THE issue, if that is the way you honestly feel, you need to be members of UKIP who are totally focussed on the EU to the exclusion of everything else.

   I stated in the post above that that brought your party into line with the Cameron-Clarke hijacked Tories who also have left their stated policies.

   So, one can reasonably assume that if a party’s leader and his deputy leader both state that something is the policy, then it is. On what basis may I, a non-member, assume anything else?

   Now, going back to the manifesto, I knew that your old policy was:

   “The Libertarian Party would take the UK out of the European Union … Whilst the UK remains part of the European superstate, it is largely irrelevant which party is elected to Westminster; the hands of our national politicians are tied by the faceless bureaucrats in Brussels.”

   You’ve kindly reprinted this above. The reason I knew it was LPUK policy was that both your former leader and the leader before him both said it was.

   But you do see the dilemma, don’t you? I’m assuming, because of your and your deputy’s changed stance that the policy itself had changed with you.

   Not for one second did I realize you had done a Dave and were actually out of step with your membership on policy. Perhaps you have always held out against a referendum but your earlier posts on your blog seem to say the opposite – that you supported a referendum.

   So you see, it was not dishonesty on my part but reasonable assumptions that actually showed up an anomaly within the party once I was assured that policy had not changed.

   The confusion is over where you actually stand vis a vis a referendum. “Whilst the UK remains part” assumes you want out and the only way that can happen, as you know, is via a referendum. If there was another way, than Carswell, Hannan and Better Off Out would not bother calling for a referendum.

   Yet you say you want out and then say you don’t – that you don’t want a referendum.

   ???

   Now, it only remains for me to apologize to any libertarian out there – all is well, your party itself [if not its leadership] is still anti-EU and pro-referendum.

   I hope that you and the deputy can get this matter resolved, DK and that LPUK can then go forward from strength to strength. No need to apologize to me for the erroneous charge of dishonesty – I’ll put it down to a misunderstanding.

3. Devil’s Kitchen, on February 24th, 2010 at 22:27

   James,

   I am not the party: the Libertarian Party’s policy remains as stated on the website: that a Libertarian Party government would leave the EU. No referendums, no pissing about.

   My personal view (and, on the record, it should show that I stressed that this was my personal view) is that I do not want a referendum now because I think that we—that is, those of us who want to leave the EU—would lose.

   The pro-EU forces have dined out of the strength of a referendum on the Common Market for nearly forty years—we simply cannot risk another “stay in” vote.

   “So, one can reasonably assume that if a party’s leader and his deputy leader both state that something is the policy, then it is. On what basis may I, a non-member, assume anything else?”

   On the basis of the published manifesto.

   “Now, it only remains for me to apologize to any libertarian out there – all is well, your party itself [if not its leadership] is still anti-EU and pro-referendum.”

   Oh, do grow up, James. I have explained this to you at least twice in email conversations.

   As I said above, the party policy is not pro-referendum: our party policy is to leave the EU. There’s no referendum involved.

   And I am still anti-EU—as I have been for at least the last twenty years—but it is because of that stance that I do not want a referendum now.

   DK

4. James Higham, on February 24th, 2010 at 22:40

   No, you’re out of step with your party, as I stated. You say you are anti-EU but you don’t want the UK out. As you know, the only way out is a referendum. And yet your party manifesto says you must go for that. How does “growing up” come into this? As I said, I hope you and your deputy get it all sorted out because the members would probably like to know whether you want out or in.

   In means any policy can be implemented. Out means referendum.

   This is the political truism you’d know if you’d read the material on the EU. I’ve summarized it in the first two posts in this series. You’ll see, of course, that the only way out is referendum and it has to be now, to keep you in line with your party policy.

5. Trooper Thompson, on February 24th, 2010 at 22:54

   DK,

   I can see what you’re saying, which would make sense if there was more than a snowball’s chance in hell of LPUK sweeping to power. Should everyone sit on their hands waiting for that glorious day?

   ‘we simply cannot risk another “stay in” vote.’

   The status quo is that we’ve lost. A referendum may be one last throw of the dice, but if we don’t take it, we’ve lost anyway.

6. James Higham, on February 24th, 2010 at 23:12

   I think what is being missed here was that the pro vote was 3% in Wilson’s referendum because the question was framed in a positive atmosphere towards the EU. Now there is between 53% and 83% wanting out. So the atmosphere is that a yes vote would ensue.

   So what risk of a “stay in vote”? It’s a smokescreen. I mean, look at the logic. If you’ve read parts one and two which I suspect you haven’t, you’d know there are myriad regulations in the pipeline. Every day are a couple of dozen more. The UK is in the process of being broken up right now.

   The people are angry and a large majority want out. So leaders who won’t support that are going against the people’s voice. It’s a case of Nero fiddling.

   What the UK needs is leaders who will take a firm stance on this.

   What is also being missed here is that the very MPs who are in the thick of it over there know full well what is going down. That is why both Conservative and UKIP are both singing the same song. They are in he middle of it, they see it, they realize the urgency. Hence Douglas’ PMB.

   It’s only in the UK that we have this fast asleep syndrome written about by Orwell. It’s like people are unaware of the danger. It’s like the Nazis at Calais and someone over here waves to them and says, ‘Oh look, nice German tourists.”

   Just read the material please, for goodness sake and follow the links.

7. CherryPie, on February 24th, 2010 at 23:19

   The problem we face is the current leaders have a vested interest in staying in.

8. Devil’s Kitchen, on February 25th, 2010 at 01:40

   James,

   “You say you are anti-EU but you don’t want the UK out.”

   *sigh*

   Yes. I. Do. If I were in charge, we would be out tomorrow.

   However, all that you are proposing is a referendum. Which, right now, we would lose—thus condemning us for another forty years, at least.

   “As you know, the only way out is a referendum.”

   No, it’s not. A willing government could take us out tomorrow, simply by repealing the European Communities Act (yes, they could: it’s the one advantage that the Lisbon Treaty had over the EU Constitution).

   A referendum result, however, is not binding in our constitution.

   “And yet your party manifesto says you must go for that.”

   No, it doesn’t. Because a referendum is not the only way out. Get it?

   Trooper Thomson,

   “The status quo is that we’ve lost. A referendum may be one last throw of the dice, but if we don’t take it, we’ve lost anyway.”

   Much better to have the referendum in, say, five years—when the British people have realised the full horror of the Lisbon Treaty—and we can guarantee the result.

   This is called practical politics.

   DK

9. James Higham, on February 25th, 2010 at 08:02

   Sigh. OK, right. Let’s go:

   No DK, you miss the whole point and clearly you haven’t even bothered reading the summary in the first two parts. It showed clearly that the UK does NOT have power under the ECA – this is the dangerous mantra which the main party leaders have been tantalized with and are trotting out to the rank and file.

   They have a technical power in terms of a provision but there are counter-provisions in other legislation. Also in “practical terms”, as you put it:

   Parliament can only repeal UK laws, i.e. the European Communities Act if 2 things are still in place in 5 years time;

   a. A United Kingdom, and
   b. A United Kingdom Parliament.

   Regional governments won’t have the power to withdraw; that’s why there is the headlong rush to grant more devolution to Wales, NI & Scotland, and the minions are calling for localisation (more properly regionalisation) in England.

   This is not being done by accident

   You’re not unintelligent, DK, so why are you putting this stuff instead of leading us? Heaven knows the country could do with a leader. I suspect that your real life work is soaking up the bulk of your time and you’re both not looking in the right direction, at the right material in your spare time plus you are probably very tired right now.

   You cannot take us out unilaterally because the government has signed away, relinquished the power to make policy and they’ve relinquished it to a self-amending body. Don’t you understand that it is not a static body, that the Commission and the Council are both changing shape in terms of your “practical” politics which you speak of.

   You’re doing precisely what you accuse me of – putting a technically correct mantra which is wildly IMPRACTICAL. It cannot be done in practice because of the ramifications for other treaties and agreements, many of which are based on our debt to other bodies. It is so naive I can’t believe you’re putting it forward.

   Do you want me to back that up? I have. Read effing parts one and two, with the greatest of respect. What, for example, do you think of Article 490? 491? I humbly and with enormous respect entreat you – read the effing material before you speak!

   You see, what you’re doing is not recognizing that it is changing on a daily, weekly basis. The goal of the EU is to keep Germany, France and the UK, i.e. England inside to keep funding it and to minimize the chance of independent action. They are doing it not only with regulations, delegated legislation and SIs – they are also doing it through a culture of the European Community which is tied into the BIS and Round Table groups – the money, in other words.

   We have an empty treasury currently and deep debt to foreign lenders. Do you think all this just happened through Brown’s incompetence? It was set up for the bigger picture – holding England in. They know very well about the ECA. They know every step of the game. You’re not dealing with nobodies in Europe.

   “I would take us out tomorrow?”

   How? How? You have no mechanism, except a technical one. What, you’d default on all our loans? You could do it unilaterally only one way – appeal to the people’s voice and the people’s voice is only through a referendum.

   You can’t even do the negotiating without that legitimacy. You say we’d lose the vote – quite the opposite. We’d win it if it were put to the people correctly by our side. i.e. in simple terms they’d understand and that doesn’t take five years – it takes some months for the attention spans of the average punter.

   We keep coming back [not me coming back - we, we, the UK] to the referendum. Of course they’ll ignore it but it gives any leader of ours legitimacy which Brown signed away, on behalf of future parliaments. You can quote the old Act which does not allow parliaments to do that but you no longer, when it comes up for legal scrutiny, have British courts dealing with it – they are European courts, using Corpus Juris

   These are the things which are just so frustrating that people do not understand.

   Practical politics? These are the practical politics, DK.

10. xxxl, on February 25th, 2010 at 09:11

    While ever eu bribes are filtering through by way of strategic investments, (bribes in real terms, just the same as eu pensions for dozens of Lords) you don’t stand a chance, James.

    As more control is taken, westminster loses financial control, eu picks targets to bribe, sheep will increasingly vote for eu.

    it’s just the same as in any election…promise the most, get elected. Electorate dependency becomes a majority.

    Cut off the money!…. or perhaps it’s too entrenched, even now!

11. James Higham, on February 25th, 2010 at 09:15

    DK, the Justice Laws Thoburn v Sunderland is a key factor here. There is now, thanks to Brown not countermanding it, a hierarchy of statutes proposed by Laws.

    It is so that constitutional statutes are derived from English law and not EU law in terms of that judgment but this has been overridden by Lisbon itself. The Rawlinson [et al] opinion was that in a dispute involving implied repeal, the latter stature would rule, i.e. the EU opinion.

    Now, this is not to be argued, in the next five years, in purely English courts – it is being argued in a European context because it involves repeal and withdrawal.

    What I’m saying here is that learned opinion and precedent is being set in an area where it had not been an issue before. The court must refer to something so it has this and other judicial opinion.

    What we have here is the odds being stacked in favour of the repeal failing. What would bolster the withdrawers’ case would be a referendum No because it gives the much needed precedent in order to argue. All else is just argument.

    Therefore, in order to do what you say – try again in five years, you have to lay the groundwork now before EU Law subsumes national law – that’s what’s going on right now – the mad scramble.

    To let it go for five years or to hope to put up a constitutional case not based on the will of the people is highly dangerous. So – far from it being impractical to hold a referendum now, it is in fact immensely practical because it would determine the whole debate from then on.

    And it would be a Yes, not a No as you say because DC would be framing the question. His Eurosceptic wing would raise hell if he tried to put anything but a clearcut in/out. I know he’ll try it because I heard what was proposed at the Conference.

    But things have moved on from then.

    The only way I’d agree with you here that it is too early is if Brown was returned or to do it right now. We’re not talking about that – we’re talking about in the first year of the new parliament, while it is still a parliament of the UK.

12. xxxl, on February 25th, 2010 at 08:39 Said: Edit Comment
    1. http://www.newstatesman.com/business-food-and-drink/2010/02/trewithen-dairy-milk
    2. http://burningourmoney.blogspot.com/2010/02/tough-choices-are-tough.htmlWhat’s the betting this post goes to post heaven???

This post comprises the comments section of a previous post on the EU.  I’ve selected comments addressing the specific issue and these form the new post here.  The comments section of the other post has now closed.  Feel free to continue the discussion in comments below here.

Filed under: Politics & economics