Tuesday, 9 August 2011

John Redwood still doesn't 'get it'

John Redwood has an article in today's Daily Telegraph on the subject of our country's relationship with the European Union. Discussing various alternative options for membership, John Redwood has his own proposal:
"As the euro area will need what amounts to a single country government to manage and control budgets, borrowings, transfers of revenue, banks and the currency, there must be changes to prevent Britain being dragged into such collective decision-taking on such a wide range of crucial issues. The simplest way I can see of achieving what is required would be for this country to surrender its right to veto what the other EU states want to do – whatever it may be and however much power it may take from member states – in return for the right to opt out of anything they do which does not suit us. We could retain our place at the table for new measures, and make our contribution to the debate. If we reached agreement, we would apply it as well; if we could not go along with the majority, we would simply apply our opt-out. The potential opt-out should also apply to any power already given away, so we can restore proper democratic control over what has previously been lost."
Redwood's entire thesis is built on the belief that politicians will negotiate and agree to any changes; that politicians will decide matters on our behalf as presumably they consider us unable so to do - although paradoxically they believe we do have that ability where their own election to office is concerned; and that if we don't like something which has been enacted we can vote for a government that will repeal it - but is that not why our country is in such a mess as a result of having been a political ping-pong ball, one continually hit between two opposing factions?

Of course when Redwood writes: "so we can restore proper democratic control" he is referring to the restoration of complete parliamentary dictatorship by Westminster. Just what is it that politicians do not understand about the relationship of servant and master? Just what is it that makes politicians believe they are the 'master'? Of course it is a fact that politicians have made themselves the master by their continual usurpation of our freedoms. Another undisputable fact is we have allowed politicians of all parties to inflict a series of high taxation, high regulation governments, which have improverished, weakened and, utimately, will make us their docile chattels - if it has not already so done.

I am presently reading a novel by Stuart Fairney entitled "Single Acts Of Tyranny" - the words of the title being the start of a quotation by Thomas Jefferson. The complete quotation has resonance to this post, to the continual enslavement of the people that has been practised by politicians for some decades:
"Single acts of tyranny may be described to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate systematic plan of reducing people to slavery."
There has to be a better way - of which more in the coming weeks.................


kenomeat said...

I'm sorry WfW but isn't John Redwood simply being pragmatic? The type of revolution you would require (and this applies to "referism" and "localism" as well) is not going to happen in this or the next generation. At least JR is advocating a reasonable and perhaps achievable goal. I accept your point about the master/servant relationship but that is the way of the world and we have to try to win victories within its current rules.

kenomeat said...

Whilst I'm in the mood, I notice that Richard North is having another dig at Nigel Farage. Peter Hitchens is also hostile towards Farage and UKIP. It saddens me that there is no clear unity between respected bloggers (including your goodself) and UKIP in the battle against Brussels and our Westminster and Whitehall quisling representatives. This hostility does nothing for the eurosceptic movement. Unity is strength!

Single Acts of Tyranny said...

I used to have a lot of time for Redwood, but from reading his blog for sometime now, I fear he is now inculcated with the Westminster navel-gazing. He recently blogged that contrary to what the Tea Party wanted in America, he did not think it possible to cut government spending by 10%

Now if someone like JR doesn't think it possible, what hope is there for Clegg, Cameron or Milli?

WitteringsfromWitney said...

k: You either believe in indepdence or you don't and it seems JR doesn't. As to change from within, k, I am disappointed that you have fallen for a 'trick' - have the Tories managed to change the EU from within?

I think change can happen in this generation and I fully intend being here to witness it. People may not be aware yet of localism and referism, but they will.......

On NF: I am not hostile to UKIP, nor Farage, except in areas where he is falling down on the job. It would indeed be nice if all the anti-EU could forget their differences, but............ I believe NF is not right with his call for the army to be involved.

Saot: Firt I got that book, arrived this am. Like you, I too believe JR has developed the navel gazing to which you refer.

kenomeat said...

WfW: I haven't fallen for the trick. I still believe in total withdrawal from the EU but I simply can't see any prospect of achieving it in one go.
As for trusting politicians to make decisions for us I again can't see any alternative at the moment. The trouble is that the spineless bunch we have in parliament at the moment are not just useless; they are dangerous. We need a healthy number of independents and a major increase in the number of minor party representatives. Also the whip system must be abolished.
I do support your more radical ideas; I just think they are more long-term.

cuffleyburgers said...

WfW - Redwood is right to the extent that as a nation we have a parliament and a government and if anybody is going to do anything to alter the position wrt the EU it will have to be done by them.

I think he writes more sense than most as he is aquainted with what can actually be done, althought he seems to have depressingly little ability to make his voice heard to those in govt who need to hear it...

The only way we can do that is to make a lot of noise. We need and English TEA party, we need convincing people on TV we need to march in massive numbers.

THere seems to be quite a number of right thinking MPs but precious few of them are in a position of influence.

kenomeat said...

Cuffley: I agree entirely with everything you wrote. One potential way forward would be for the 1922 committee, most of whom are supposedly Eurosceptic, to organise a proper resistance to Cameron and to start making some forthright demands. There must be many, like Bill Cash, who have no ambition to hold office and are not scared of the whips. I just wish I knew how they could be galvanised into action.
There was a time when the 1922 committee was very powerful; especially when the leader had only a small majority. Surely when the leader has no overall majority this would be the time to act.

cosmic said...

John Redwood's view is that there should be a renegotiation of the treaties and in the light of those negotiations a referendum then be held.

Bill Cash's view seems to be that we can reform the EU into something more to our taste, basically a trading bloc. He appears to reject withdrawal.

Firstly, there appears no desire on the part of successive governments to enter into serious negotiations, quite the opposite.

Secondly, it's hard to see the point of these negotiations without the threat of withdrawal, which I suppose Redwood's stance incorporates as a veiled threat.

However, if we had a clear intention to withdraw from the EU, there would obviously need to be negotiation, and we could hardly pretend it didn't exist.

As I see it, it's a matter of being a member of the EU, or not. I know there are arguments about Norway having to go along with much from the EU.

I believe arguments about British withdrawal with the EU in anything like the current state of affairs are essentially futile. The political establishment wants to be part of the EU. The way the EU works; bureaucrats running things, politicians for show, popular opinion contained are very much to its taste.

I think we'll see that the big state as set up in the UK is unworkable and we'll see the EU unravel for much the same reasons. Predictions about timescales are notoriously difficult and the Soviet Union struggled on for years, my guess is that the Euro crisis cannot be resolved and the EU will be forced to break up or radically change within two years.

WitteringsfromWitney said...

k: Agreed at the moment I can't see any way of achieving it in one go, except by continually making a noise about it. The louder the noise the more chance of the remaining sheep hearing it......

I can never accept that the polies should make decisions on constitutional matters that affect us, without asking us. Just whos country is it theirs or ours too?

Yes they are dangerous and yes we cud do with some independents, but even that is difficult with the sheep we have.......

cb: We do indeed have a parliament, but one with MPs both of which have too much power over too many matters.

JR may know what needs to be done, his lack of voice on the matter may be due to: what exactly? I asked on a comment some weeks ago whether JR has been silenced by the promise of a promtion being in the offing?

k: The problem with the 1922 is that yet again it is one section of parl affecting another. if parl is to listen to anyone, it should be the people.

c: If one is a eurosceptic, then negotiation is not an option - they need us far more than we need them, hence we tell them we're off and these are OUR conditions.

That the EU may well unravel is more than a possibility, cause if the euro fails then any political union fails as without fiscal union there cannot be any other union.