There is a sub-text emerging from the exchanges on Mark Mardell's Euro blog which, I think, is worthy of attention. Normally eminently reasonable people like Menedemus have found common cause with the likes of Marcus Aurelius II and that interesting but somewhat slavish adherent to the federal ideal, Jukka Rohilla. It is something I cannot question because I have not been backward in coming forward with the same theory - that democracy in the UK is all but dead and buried.
You will be unsurprised that I came to that conclusion a while back but it does start to become disturbing when people with such divergent views find the one area on which they can agree is the end of British democracy. They are of course talking about the future of Britain within - or possibly outside - the EU and that, for all it's importance, is a very specific issue and one which is unlikely to be a deciding factor in foreseeable elections. Nevertheless, the point is a good one. Since Europe is a cross party issue (you will find your fair share of enthusiasts in the Tories and sceptics in Labour), no one party with a snowball's hope in hell of being elected is going to venture onto that territory. Which, of course means that the debate will never be had. Except for one thing - there are millions out there champing at the bit for the debate to be had and not a few of us who are becoming so disenchanted with the endless arguments that it would almost be worth ending up on the losing side just as long as we can get the battle done and dusted.
The irony is that you have on the one side, those who dismiss the EU as a bureaucratic and undemocratic irrelevance and are quite happy to ignore the democratic deficit within the UK in order to further their cause and on the other, those who are despairing of what they see as an increasingly isolationist tendency and would cheerfully sign up for just about anything. Ironic also that both quarters cite the democratic credentials of the EU as an excuse to studiously ignore the developing crisis in blighty.
My own position is too well rehearsed for me to feign disinterest but one thing I will say to both sides in equal measure is that arguing the toss about the democratic deficit in Europe while your own democracy lies bleeding is an unforgivable act of betrayal. How you can lambaste those who mortgage your children s' future while you are cheerfully giving it away is beyond me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Hi,
Regarding democracy and its destruction in the UK, have you seen that the female activist who threw green custard at the prince of darkness has been arrested. It seems there was a concerted effort by the media to say she was wrong and should instead have tried conventional methods within the law.
However, what has been missed is that laws reflect what the government of the day pass, so if Gordie wants to follow Poland and make it a criminal offence to insult him or his cohorts he can, but that does not make the law just or democratic. Secondly can anyone give an example of a public enquiry or consultation that has not rubber stamped the politicians wishes. Thirdly, why do we need a third LHR runway, answer we don't, it's a sop to the BAA for being forced by Brown to sell off LGW and STN. Likewise the expansion of those two is a sop to the potential purchasers. This mess is yet another cock up by Gordon Brown, everything he touches collapses into disarray.
BAA was a very successful company until they sold out to the Spanish building consortium. Amongst other things, they owned Ferihégy in Budapest and a damned good opeartion it was too. Then the Spanish fouled it up and flogged it on to a German outfit, who thank God, have sorted it out. I think it is right and proper that government should have a role in major strategic planning decisions but that role must be conditioned by the fact that they are supposed to be democratically accountable. They are not supposed to know better than the people, they are supposed to do what the people want.
Interfering with business is an entirely different matter and forcing BAA to flog the other two airports is a bit like telling Ford they can't make Mondeos and Fiestas because the market share is too big. London does need another runway but the only reason they want it at Heathrow is so that they don't have to spendmoney on necessary infrastructure improvements at Stanstead, which is where it should go. After all, the traffic from the midlands and north could be drawn away from London if they chose the Stanstead option, there are acres of space and the flight path is over the North Sea. But what do I know?
Since we now own Lloyds TSB as well a HBOS, perhaps we could lend ourselves enough money to buy LGW and Stanstead, lease them back to BAA, default on the mortgage and sue ourselves.
Your analysis is quite correct, they should have an input but its patently ridiculous that most decisions are made to suit their political stance rather than logic. I thought the Stansted infrastructure was now sorted and that there was a fast train link matching LHR's. However to destroy a swathe of housing near LHR and Charlewood in Surrey near LGW when STN was always envisaged as the airport to expand is culpable. When I worked at BAA in the early 80's my squash friends were very senior engineers and one was even engineering director. Another of them was the project manager for the new STN terminal that they built in the mid 80's so I got to hear their plans for BAA and it was always STN as LGW was a no no due to the destruction of Charlewood. Their only problem was to convince airlines to move to STN as it had/s a charter image.
It seems somewhat rediculus that Brown's policy of airport expansion has been at the expense of expanding the much greener rail links. Eurostar now arrives as quick as a plane from Brussels or Paris and there are plenty of links with Thalys or TGV. However when in St Pancras or Ebsfleet what do you find, flashy but slow trains that are over priced. There is really something very wrong with our UK democracy when the decision making is so wayward from logic.
PS. a Belgian joke I was sent. A Mayor decides to have the town hall repainted and asks for quotes from an English company, a German company and a Walloon company. The English company quotes 3 million Euro and says 1M for two coats of paint, 1M for scaffolding, insurance etc, and 1M for labour. The German company quotes 6 Million, 2M for 3 coats of special paint, 2M for scaffolding, and 2M for labour. The Walloon company says to the Mayor their quote is 9 Million, 3M for the mayor, 3M for the paint and insurance etc, and 3M for labour.
Is this a tall story or maybe what actually happens in democratic Europe.
Hi,
Buzet23 will know New Milton but, for other visitors, it is a small town of about 35,000 on the Hants/Dorset border. Along the length of it's shopping street - less than a mile long - there are, from north to south, a branch of Lloyds Bank, a Cheltenham and Gloucester (which is Lloyds), a Nat West (which is HBOS), a Halifax (also HBOS) and another Lloyds from the TSB time. All this now belongs to us (more correctly we are majority shareholders) which means that we are competing against ourselves to try get business away from Barclays, HSBC and Santander Abbey, which are the other three. All this in little more than a village.
I now learn that Lloyds are still consideing paying out 80 million in bonuses. Please tell me what chance there is of a government of such blind stupidity making a sensible decision about where to put a set of traffic lights, still less a bloody runway.
We are in a depression. We are supposed to be spending our way out of it by investing huge amounts in infrastructure. What better time than to complete public transport projects, build high speed rail links, upgrade highways and generally prepare for the eventual upturn? What are we actually doing? Giving 80 million to LTSB to pay bonuses for achieving nothing amongst people who can count themselves very lucky to have a job at all.
There may be time yet to address the democratic deficit issue but how much longer can UKplc survive under current management?
One further comment about public consultations, here is an extract my family in Lambeth received today about an extension of the controlled parking zone system to their road.
"The proposals will now be subject to statutory consultation due to take place in April 2009 with a view to implementation in May 2009 (subject to the result of the statutory consultation)".
It is perfectly clear from this that there will never be a refusal to this plan, just as there was never any doubt that the LHR third runway would be approved. When statutory consultations are just a rubber stamping exercise they are meaningless, just as is the UK government. Unfortunately they are not just meaningless but dangerous as they have the power to destroy, the lunatics have taken over the asylum.
Well "consultation . . . with a view to implementation" just about says it all really. Consultation is about finding out what people want then implementing that. If implementation becomes inevitable, then consultation become irrelevant.
By the way, there are so many stuffed Scottish banks around at the moment that I got my HBOSes and RBOSes muddled up above. Curiousl, that means Lloyds actuall have one more, not one fewer outlets in that one horse town.
Talking about the plot thickens and the BBC blogs, in Mark's new blog it seems WEP has inherited the fast track mantle as even menedemus is several behind him whilst WEP has been published.
Thank you for posting such a useful, impressive and a wicked article./Wow.. looking good!
Scaffold Labour
Post a Comment