Damian Green MP, UK Conservative spokesman on Immigration, has been arrested by anti-terrorism agents yesterday night and had his home in Kent, London properties and offices raided by the police. The accusation: being a link in the chain of embarrassing leaks from Government offices. The Times has an excellent commentary today.
More information in my previous post.
Labour has overstepped the line this time. UK voters will not forgive these Zimbabwe-like tactics when they go to what may potentially be the last fair polls in the country's history if Labour isn't ousted.
Showing posts with label democracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label democracy. Show all posts
Saturday, 29 November 2008
Friday, 13 June 2008
Ireland saves Europe, votes "NO"
Ireland's popular NO to the backdoor EU constitution plunges the European Union back into a crisis, the same constitutional gridlock it experienced after the French and Dutch rejected the original 500+ page legalese leviathan. What are the implications?
Having realized citizens' inherent opposition to the direction the EU is going (more regulation, more bureaucracy, less accountability, less common sense) twenty-six governments decided to bypass their people and ratify the Lisbon Treaty through parliaments. Nothing wrong there, except that the EU is made BY governments FOR governments, and on issues of continental integration the 300 million Europeans deserve to vote independently of whoever runs their countries at this time.
I'm a fervent advocate of European integration and continentalism, but the EU went from a maker of freedom to a ball-and-chain at the foot of progress. Compulsory agricultural quotas, compulsory levels of consumer taxation and spurious regulations have alienated the very founders of the Union. That the original NO came from two of the Union's founding fathers should have rung a loud alarm bell.
The original constitution and the now-defunct treaty were the product of statism, the desire to create a super-state that would choke national sovereignty. The abject failure to obtain popular approval for the new order is before our very eyes. Brussels overpaid lazy meddling elites have been dealt another severe blow, and now there's no plan B.
The Union is in stalemate, as the changes supposed to correct for expansion (to make the Union governable) failed to take effect. It is a clear indictment of Government By Fait-Accompli. The roots of this debacle should be sought in the pervasive Brussels attitude of not caring for the citizen the least, promoting instead a culture of assistance and horse-trading (farm subsidies, anyone?). Irish voters saved millions of Europeans from a top-down diktat, and I believe the continent owes the Emerald Isle a big favour.
Thinking one could buy loyalty with Brussels money is exactly what made the referendum fail. The EU is out of touch, choked in red tape, anti-citizen, cynical and outright on the wrong track. It deserves every drubbing it has received recently, and deserves more until it is hammered down into a sober realization that it is, indeed, in need of a good trim of power, money and ego.
Having realized citizens' inherent opposition to the direction the EU is going (more regulation, more bureaucracy, less accountability, less common sense) twenty-six governments decided to bypass their people and ratify the Lisbon Treaty through parliaments. Nothing wrong there, except that the EU is made BY governments FOR governments, and on issues of continental integration the 300 million Europeans deserve to vote independently of whoever runs their countries at this time.
I'm a fervent advocate of European integration and continentalism, but the EU went from a maker of freedom to a ball-and-chain at the foot of progress. Compulsory agricultural quotas, compulsory levels of consumer taxation and spurious regulations have alienated the very founders of the Union. That the original NO came from two of the Union's founding fathers should have rung a loud alarm bell.
The original constitution and the now-defunct treaty were the product of statism, the desire to create a super-state that would choke national sovereignty. The abject failure to obtain popular approval for the new order is before our very eyes. Brussels overpaid lazy meddling elites have been dealt another severe blow, and now there's no plan B.
The Union is in stalemate, as the changes supposed to correct for expansion (to make the Union governable) failed to take effect. It is a clear indictment of Government By Fait-Accompli. The roots of this debacle should be sought in the pervasive Brussels attitude of not caring for the citizen the least, promoting instead a culture of assistance and horse-trading (farm subsidies, anyone?). Irish voters saved millions of Europeans from a top-down diktat, and I believe the continent owes the Emerald Isle a big favour.
“Call it hubris,” said one senior figure, “people seem to have forgotten what Ireland was like before we received European funding. They seem to think that we created our success all by ourselves. They are wrong.”
Thinking one could buy loyalty with Brussels money is exactly what made the referendum fail. The EU is out of touch, choked in red tape, anti-citizen, cynical and outright on the wrong track. It deserves every drubbing it has received recently, and deserves more until it is hammered down into a sober realization that it is, indeed, in need of a good trim of power, money and ego.
Sunday, 14 October 2007
Advice for China: never say never
The Commies are at it again: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7043942.stm
So China will never copy the Western style of democracy, huh. Why does that ring a bell for everyone with a faint knowledge of history? Someone else said, many decades ago, that his country's system will bury American capitalism. That country was the same Soviet Union which imploded without honour or dignity in 1991, and Communism has thankfully been receding ever since.
True economic progress is achieved only with a sustained drive towards individual freedom, otherwise the benefits of growth are not shared by the general population. The current Congress is set to change the Constitution to include provisions for avoiding pollution and preventing a widening gap between the rich and the poor, the former getting richer and the latter stuck in a rut.
Pardon me, wasn't Communism made exactly to serve that purpose? Clearly something has gone terribly wrong if they haven't managed to solve that problem in over 50 years. If the Communists wasnt to stay in power they'd better start reforming their system radically, rather than clinging to an ideology that has been confined to the dustbin long ago. How about private ownership of land for starters? How about limiting the power of local officials? How about taking some duties away from the central authority? There's no need for a multi-party democracy if you don't want one, but this comes at the expense of the State shedding off its influence on people's choices.
I'm sure that in my lifetime I will see either the red flag go down or Marx and Mao turning in their graves one more time seeing how far their societies have strayed from their perverted ideologies. I'll keep a good champagne bottle chilling in the fridge for that occasion.
Never say never, comrade.
So China will never copy the Western style of democracy, huh. Why does that ring a bell for everyone with a faint knowledge of history? Someone else said, many decades ago, that his country's system will bury American capitalism. That country was the same Soviet Union which imploded without honour or dignity in 1991, and Communism has thankfully been receding ever since.
True economic progress is achieved only with a sustained drive towards individual freedom, otherwise the benefits of growth are not shared by the general population. The current Congress is set to change the Constitution to include provisions for avoiding pollution and preventing a widening gap between the rich and the poor, the former getting richer and the latter stuck in a rut.
Pardon me, wasn't Communism made exactly to serve that purpose? Clearly something has gone terribly wrong if they haven't managed to solve that problem in over 50 years. If the Communists wasnt to stay in power they'd better start reforming their system radically, rather than clinging to an ideology that has been confined to the dustbin long ago. How about private ownership of land for starters? How about limiting the power of local officials? How about taking some duties away from the central authority? There's no need for a multi-party democracy if you don't want one, but this comes at the expense of the State shedding off its influence on people's choices.
I'm sure that in my lifetime I will see either the red flag go down or Marx and Mao turning in their graves one more time seeing how far their societies have strayed from their perverted ideologies. I'll keep a good champagne bottle chilling in the fridge for that occasion.
Never say never, comrade.
Thursday, 8 March 2007
Keep the Lords CLEAN
The House of Commons has expressed a preference for more elected peers in the Lords, marking what I deem to be the beginning of the end of parliamentary sovereignty in Britain. Until today the Lords have acted as a check on the Government excesses that the Commons have to bow to, as the voting records can show easily. A nearly powerless but wise House, with an over-riding clause should the Commons wish to impose their will was the best arrangement for a country such as Britain. Citizens could look at Westminster knowing that in that building there were two powerful forces keeping each other in balance: the Commons, expression of people's wants, passions, desires, excesses and the Lords, who were not as accountable to their constituents but had to justify such an anachronism by applying their wisdom rather than manifesting party loyalties.
I recently attended a very informative, albeit uncontroversial panel discussion regarding a written British Constitution. Leaving aside the rest of the discussion, a point was raised about the Lords having more legitimacy in the people's eyes if the House was more elected than appointed or wholly elected.
But this is not merely a question of democracy, as the Commons is already the most powerful House and can impose its will if necessary. It is a question of class and, let me say it, British style. The Houses aren't named randomly. The Commons is what its name says: the House representing the will of all us commoners, from the benefit fraud underclass to the rich businessmen, from the apathetic and lazy to the activists and lobbyists. It has a legitimate right to be the most powerful House because ultimately the State has to do the people's bidding.
The Lords is the house of the enlightened aristocracy. We can argue at will about the need for a House of Lords or for any aristocratic representation at all, but the fact remains that currently the Lords do not have to face party candidate selections, do not have to follow the whims of the majority in their constituencies and can calmly sit and do what they like, trying to keep up the good name of the House by being wise and voting accordingly.
What we have in proposition is now the reduction of the Lords to an even greater resemblance of what the Commons are, including all the political squabbling, favours and brown-nosing that mar any democracy. A Commoner can rebel and is stigmatised for it. At the next party candidate selection he might be pushed to a side in his seat in favour of a more loyal careerist youngster junked up on party ideology and the leader's personality cult. Is this what we want to see in the red House?
I say now and forever NO to a majority of elected Lords or anywhere close to that level of elected influence. Every citizen who disagreed with the Government's manias could look up to the Lords and know they would stand up for common sense because they didn't have to fear for their seat. Now the citizen will be left at the mercy of party politicking, whips and technocracy.
The Government doesn't know the ground it is venturing into is unsafe. If the Lords are subject to electorate and party influence there will be nothing left to act as a check on the Government, be it Labour or Conservative. If fighting citizen disillusionment with politics is the aim, this Lords reform achieves all but that.
I recently attended a very informative, albeit uncontroversial panel discussion regarding a written British Constitution. Leaving aside the rest of the discussion, a point was raised about the Lords having more legitimacy in the people's eyes if the House was more elected than appointed or wholly elected.
But this is not merely a question of democracy, as the Commons is already the most powerful House and can impose its will if necessary. It is a question of class and, let me say it, British style. The Houses aren't named randomly. The Commons is what its name says: the House representing the will of all us commoners, from the benefit fraud underclass to the rich businessmen, from the apathetic and lazy to the activists and lobbyists. It has a legitimate right to be the most powerful House because ultimately the State has to do the people's bidding.
The Lords is the house of the enlightened aristocracy. We can argue at will about the need for a House of Lords or for any aristocratic representation at all, but the fact remains that currently the Lords do not have to face party candidate selections, do not have to follow the whims of the majority in their constituencies and can calmly sit and do what they like, trying to keep up the good name of the House by being wise and voting accordingly.
What we have in proposition is now the reduction of the Lords to an even greater resemblance of what the Commons are, including all the political squabbling, favours and brown-nosing that mar any democracy. A Commoner can rebel and is stigmatised for it. At the next party candidate selection he might be pushed to a side in his seat in favour of a more loyal careerist youngster junked up on party ideology and the leader's personality cult. Is this what we want to see in the red House?
I say now and forever NO to a majority of elected Lords or anywhere close to that level of elected influence. Every citizen who disagreed with the Government's manias could look up to the Lords and know they would stand up for common sense because they didn't have to fear for their seat. Now the citizen will be left at the mercy of party politicking, whips and technocracy.
The Government doesn't know the ground it is venturing into is unsafe. If the Lords are subject to electorate and party influence there will be nothing left to act as a check on the Government, be it Labour or Conservative. If fighting citizen disillusionment with politics is the aim, this Lords reform achieves all but that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)