Vaunting the intention to shift the powers of the Crown from the prime minister to the Executive and even to Parliament is an empty gesture. In the last 10 years we have watched a power shift from adversarial electoral democracy to party hegemony over all political process and many ostensibly non-political institutions.
No-one has elected the member of parliament for a Scottish constituency to the office of Prime Minister of the United Kingdom; and in this interregnum between the exit of an elected prime minister (and yes we do elect our prime ministers, since the complete installation of the whipped party system post 1945 ) and another general election, we see this foreign leader of the governing party installing his power base, the Labour party, in permanent control of our country.
England divided into nine regions determined more than anything by their lack of historical, or cultural, or economic homogeneity now has not just nine appointed regional councils, but nine appointed Labour party ministers for them to answer to; and for all nine a Labour party appointed nomenklatura determines the disposal of tax-sourced expenditures, controlling development, employment opportunities, access to all and any state resources, and grossly affecting the deployment of non-state, private activity.
And where is the English Parliament? Not needed, there are regional councils, regional ministers, committees of specialist skills to deal with England ; the Union must not be undermined.
The Union is already gone. Scotland has voted out the Labour party when it had the chance and while there was still time. There is a perfect model for what Scotland's relations with the rest of the once United Kingdom are, indeed it was used in drafting the 'concordats' between the two governments in Edinburgh and in London (although Labour never thought to lose Scotland and their coming into effective use, as they have done ), the model is the relations between former colonial territories and Westminster; and, even more powerful in its imagery, the Two Crowns relationship of Scotland to England that subsisted for more than a century before Scotland's subjugation.
Wales nearly made it out, but was betrayed by the Liberal Democrat party - that excuse for Labour -with -a - conscience that besmirches the word liberal.
Ireland? Ulster has its own agenda and, apart from the cash from Westminster, is properly thankless in its pursuit of what is its interest.
The European Union is not the root of all evil. The draining of our control or even influence over our own lives is not coming from there. But our membership of that Union is so conditioned by the Labour party that what it has to offer is denied us, and what it consists in otherwise, damages our individual interests severely. In the last ten Labour years it was centrally Labour policy to gain admission to the European Union for the former socialist states of the east and centre of Europe. Only the UK has not limited migration here from those states.
It is well known that neophytes are usually the strictest fundamentalists and the embrace of hyper liberal economic and social policies by these socialist 'transition' states was far stronger than ever practised in the rest of the European Union - the European social model is alive and well throughout the Union other than in the 'transition' states, even if it takes different continental, mediterranean and nordic guises; and the United Kingdom is easily recognised as a fully paid up member of the continental european social model (no matter what garbage the Labour party may spout, check the bottom lines).
If hyper-liberalism is shock -practised by a member-state, its people, used to over half a century of the highest redistributive, social wage societies in Europe, will migrate to the nearest eqivalent - us. Three quarters of a million so far and rising; massive exports of wealth back to parent countries (after all, social housing, free health care, education, no road tolls, welfare cash in all its shapes and forms for all the generations of the incoming family, it's like a time machine that frees up so much cash for personal use).
England's taxpayers are not just supporting services in Scotland, Wales and the north of Ireland - Poland, the Czech Republic, Rumania, Bulgaria and, to a lesser extent, the Baltic states, and the partakers of the mediterranean social model (which concentrates welfare accurately on the old and the sick and educating the young), Italy, Greece , Cyprus, Malta etc., are grateful for our support and the provision of what they have abolished or never provided. Not for nothing is Labour a fully paid up member of the Socialist international.
It is folly, and Labour propaganda, to think we can alter or deter the European Union's plans for a federal state. Already the core of Europe is shedding those who do not want this, and we are finding ourselves with their nationals but losing benefits that accrue to the real Europeans.
Labour's boast that we are at the heart of Europe is covering the horrible truth that we are the sump for Europe's failed socialist states. Just as they emerge from the nightmare of socialist Party authoritarian rule, we enter it. Power now is administered and allocated within the Labour party, not within the institutions and constitution of the country . The constitutional proposed reforms are a sham that belongs to a political system there is no intention of using further.
Wherever and whenever the chance occurs to vote, those who vote Labour or for their satraps, or who disdain to vote for the Conservative coalition because they want a local grammar school or free musem entrance, are fiddling while Rome burns.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Wonderful post HG.You should be holding flowers and aknowledging the rapturous ovation.
European social market - not fey.
yes, a great post HG
There is a rather interesting piece in the FT today: Adam Posen makes a point that can seem paradoxical, and is certainly missed by many unthinking free-marketers
"The irony for those who have been congenitally suspicious of excessive power being concentrated in Brussels is that the more the central body has had authority over economic policy, the greater the liberalising influence ... "
you may want to read the rest: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/26022cfa-29c7-11dc-a530-000b5df10621.html
It ties back to another point I posted on CU last night: the French are limbering up to seek exemption from EU energy market liberalisation, in order (I predict) to get the EU to pay for decommissioning of their nucs.
The best guarantor of liberalisation is a strong Competition Directorate - and we actually have quite a good one at present. It is disconcerting (to say the least) that it may be about to be undercut fundamentally - how do you read that, HG ?
Gruppenfuhrer Drew
- whilst the hopelessly closed market of Europe might need a new Reich to be forced into conformity the rest of the world does not and nor do we . If we had to make do with the growth rate of slumbering giants like the US or China I think with time and therapy I could learn to bear it.
A single market or even a currency linkage was discovered to be impossible without poltical power in the 60s. this was the "Common Market" we agreed to. What we have got is something quite different when the EU zone has become a backwater globally.
We should have stuck with the old trading partners we have sacrificed
IMHO
Germany spread the costs of reunification across the entire Union, so it would be likely that French nuclear decommissioning costs might seek the same channels.
If the 'federating' 22 or 23 member-states act like this it can be looked at as being one of the major benefits of membership. And nuclear power stations past their use by date on the Pas de Calais are effectively as bad for England as for France .
At the same time, a powerful Competition Directorate will squash member-state most-favoured sector or company defensive behaviour. I am sure that propping up Alitalia stewardess wage and condition demands by the state funding of Alitalia should be frowned on.
The economic bigotry demonstrated by the transition states in laying themselves open to unrestrained international competition was actually just stupid, on the other hand, and had to be ended after disastrous recession (on a greater scale than the 1929 crisis and, even, greater than the Black Death, when at least the dead preserved the income per capita of the living).
This is slightly off your topic, I'll have a read of the FT tomorrow.
Mr Mania, if we stay with energy for a moment, it is quite hard to see UK being anything other than highly dependent on imports of natural gas, much of which will need to transit Continental Europe (even after we maximise Norwegian & LNG imports). If these transit markets are not open, we are in for a very uncomfortable time.
I expect your views on the wind-farm 'alternative' are similar to mine.
HG, you seem rather receptive to the French special-pleading case over their entirely self-inflicted wound. Is this an instance of 'to dare to ask is to be rewarded'?
I have wondered how the French propose to pay for decommissioning their power stations for decades...
Northern French nuclear power stations are effectively southern English, nuclear contamination being what it is (or what I think it is, it's not my strongest area, nuclear physics, L.).
Cleaning up safely and, to all intents and purposes, for ever from the nuclear mess made in the 50s, 60s and 70s might seem an appropriate continent- wide undertaking? I'd be happy to include the Russian Federation too; there are parts of the UK (and other European states apart from Russia and Bylorus) that will be contaminated for so long it might as well be for ever, after Chernobyl.
Three Mile Island was contained more by luck than judgement from what is written about it, too.
What bitter irony if we are damaged not by nuclear attack but by nuclear waste.
Mushrooms in the shops round here are carefully considered before purchase; those from the former Yugoslavia are radioactive from all the 'depleted' ammunition used in the wars there.
Mushroom cloud doesn't seem so funny any more.
I think we should go nuclear ND but I was not suggesting a war with the continent. If you are suggesting they would blackmail us with a sort of energy blockade then we clearly need another source of energy pronto. I can`t see it . It would be like the GLA not allowing mnthe City to trade. Wrong scale
keep the book open on this one HG, I'm a bit tied up just now but want to go a couple more rounds, I'll foight any t'ree of yers
Nuclear generated power has my tentative support. Tentative because while I imagine the technology has vastly improved it isn't something I know about; and because it's a choice already made. There are plants across Europe and we all consume electricity generated in other member-states; it would be best to have really high standards of production and disposal of waste.
Also it ought to be cheap, as compensation for exposure to risk.
Wind turbines are like generating wave power in the desert - never enough wind, they're just a method of tax farming.
Several points:
● Mr M: no of course they won’t be blockading us, they will simply be holding back marginal supplies on cold days (as they did in 2004 and 2005) causing huge price-spikes in the UK with no rational supply-side market response possible (as happened in 2004 and 2005). Large integrated systems such as Europe enjoys (this includes the UK) work most efficiently (for all) when an open market can respond freely to price signals
● HG: what we are really waiting for is a whole new technology, probably nuc-fusion: everything else is either derisory (wind, as we all agree) or variants on more-of-the-same
● no-one asked the French to be electricity generators to the European gentry: they’ve had the (vast) export revenues, let ‘em clean up their own mess. Theirs is the behaviour of East Germany towards West Germany prior to 1989. I react badly to a gun held to my head
● yet another interesting FT piece today, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/73c3cd3a-2a90-11dc-9208-000b5df10621.html suggesting that we cut Sarkozy some extensive slack while he laboriously puts his house in order. Well, we’re all in favour of subtle & masterful statesmanship, but simultaneously letting the French off the Stability Pact hook and subsidising them to carry on in their bad old ways doesn’t seem like the right answer. (Mr CU is of the view that this would bring down the Euro, so maybe not such a bad thing after all …)
I realise we wicked ‘Anglo-Saxons’ don’t properly comprehend ‘solidarité’: but (not being a Roman Catholic) so far as I am concerned Salvation by Good Works is the answer, not ‘give me chastity, but not just yet’. If Sarkozy wishes to be given time to get his house in order, he can start by recognising the ends he should be working towards, and at very least not throw his lumbering charabanc into reverse.
ND the FT links are refusing to open.
I'll have to have a try on Mr HG's pc (which is grown up and well connected, unlike mac'mine).
OK ND ...you sound convincing. Interesting actually
Post a Comment