For the life of me, I cannot seem to copy and paste it, but over in The Week/The First Post, the ubiquitous Neil Clark, hate figure of websites that nobody reads anymore, sets out seven possibilities for Britain now that the EU is falling apart.
The nightmare vision of Margaret "Single European Act" Thatcher is becoming a reality, with democracy wholly supplanted by a banking-based technocracy exemplified by the new Italian Cabinet, which has not a single politician in it. All of this was predicted at the time and earlier by pro-Commonwealth Keynesians from Peter Shore to Sir Peter Tapsell. They were right, and Thatcher was wrong, even though, in her own terms, all of this was exactly what she wanted. Go on. Say it.
Of Neil's seven suggestions, the first three should be dismissed out of hand, but the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh are wholly compatible with each other, and should be pursued forthwith: realignment with the BRICS countries, realignment within the Commonwealth (of which, I might add, Cyprus and Malta are also members, the Irish Republic ought to be, and Portugal and Belgium are historically close enough to us that they probably could be), the implementation of the policies that the sainted Shore advocated while Shadow Chancellor, and the negotiation of bilateral trade agreements around the world. Our foreign and defence policy should also be founded on those same four pillars.
Where existing EU commitments are concerned, neither renegotiation nor referendum is necessary, but only legislation with five simple clauses: the restoration of the supremacy of British over EU law (with the use of that to repatriate agricultural policy, and to restore our historic fishing rights in accordance with international law), the disapplication in the United Kingdom of any EU law not passed through both Houses of Parliament exactly as if it had originated in one or other of them, the requirement that British Ministers adopt the show-stopping Empty Chair Policy in the Council of Ministers until it meets in public and publishes an Official Report akin to Hansard, the disapplication of any ruling of either European Court unless and until ratified by a resolution of the House of Commons, and the disapplication of anything passed by the European Parliament unless it had been passed by the majority of those MEPs certified as politically acceptable by one or more seat-taking members of the House of Commons. Easy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Remember, folks, with Ed Miliband comes Blue Labour. With Blue Labour come Neil Clark and David Lindsay. With Neil Clark and David Lindsay come this.
ReplyDeleteRealignment with Russia, China, Brazil, "the Commonwealth" and anyone else who will sign a trade, defence or diplomatic treaty with our siege economy. A coach and horses driven through our EU obligations to make this possible. No consideration of closer ties to the US.
What else should we expect? With Neil Clark come the working class nostalgia merchants from the 70s and 80s. With them come Clark's Russian and Serbian ultra-nationalists. With those come partly Clark's, but more Lindsay's, Christian pan-Arabists and Arab nationalists. With that lot come Lindsay's Catholic fundamentalists. Many of whom are working class nostalgia merchants.
Via Clark, Lindsay and their associated blogosphere figures, all of those tendencies feed into Blue Labour, which feeds into the ear of Ed Miliband. Clark and Lindsay still refuse to re-join the Labour party. There has been a coup in that party and it threatens to become a coup in this country in 2015.
Why are people like Nick Cohen, Oliver Kamm, Martin Bright, Andrew Gilligan, Stephen Pollard, Harry's Place totally silent on this?
They are too busy campaigning for the re-election of Boris Johnson.
ReplyDeleteWhy no to EFTA?
ReplyDeleteHow could it be sqaured with the other four, which are easily squared with each other? If it could be, then I might be open to it.
ReplyDeleteNAFTA and the EEA, on the other hand, are unconscionable. And probably wouldn't let us in, anyway. Would EFTA?
EFTA is just a free trade zone (like the EU ought to be) - it doesn't prevent us having a free trade agreement with other nations.
ReplyDeleteMaybe because I'm an American, I've never understood where there weren't more calls in England (use of the term intentional) to just withdraw from the EU altogether. There is a clear cultural gulf wider than the Channel. And there is nothing preventing the UK from just negotiating a free trade agreement with the EU from the outside. Really, that is what should have happened in the first place, and if worst comes to worst the UK has more trading links with the world outside Europe than does the normal country with continental European frontiers.
ReplyDeleteLikewise, given the hostility from the island towards the integration desired by the original six members, the bellyaching, the outsized debt, and the lack of interest in making European institutions work, I'm surprised there wasn't more interest on the Continent in kicking the UK out. But then they seem to have gone to great lengths to keep Greece from leaving.
And yes, more could be done with the Commonwealth, which includes two BRICS, was set up originally to be a self-sufficient trading area, and could still function as such.
NAFTA has never been popular even in North America and I agree that its not an option for the UK.
You yourself have written that Switzerland is not unlike the United Kingdom. Being from the North East, you will be aware of the links between Britain and Norway. The heir to the throne of Liechtenstein is married to the Jacobite heiress, they have a son born in London, the first Jacobite heir born here since 1688. All in all, why not have Britain joining EFTA when the rest of EFTA join the Commonwealth?
ReplyDeleteNow, I am really starting to warm to the idea. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteLike London, Newcastle still gets a Christmas tree every year from the Norwegians, in gratitude for the War. But the ties with these parts go back a lot further than that.
I believe it is correct to say that National Anthem of Liechtenstein has the same tune as our own.
I know you didn't like the referendum motion, but it was the only one on the table. Key Blue Labour player Jon Cruddas voted for it, as did traditional Labour right-wingers Frank Field, Kate Hoey, Graham Stringer, Gisela Stuart, Ian Davidson and Roger Godsiff. So did Sir Peter Tapsell, Keynesian, Commonwealth enthusiast, anti-Thatcherite and anti-neocon. So did Robin Walker, not only Peter Walker's son but MP for the same seat. How come they are the extremists and the federalist nutters are the centre ground? I don't get it.
ReplyDeleteIt is purely circular: our views (on this and other issues) make us eccentric and extreme, because we hold them; their views make them mainstream and moderate, because they hold them.
ReplyDeleteBut with even Douglas Alexander now adopting a Eurosceptical stance, and with a Labour Leader ahead in the polls while surrounded by patriotic, socially conservative advisors who favour traditional Labour economic policies, the change is on its way.