This is Bound to End in Tears

[Bryn]

Well, he is using the issue as a way of holding on to his power base and trying (unsuccessfully it seems) to blame the Democrats for obstructing him. Remember that there were two years of his presidency in which Republicans held both houses of Congress, and he was unable to get his wall money then either. Generally I don't think you can get very far holding up Trump up as an example of someone who delivers on election promises. He hasn't repealed the Affordable Care Act for example, or had Hillary Clinton arrested. His words are worth precisely nothing.

Remember, from this day forward, it's going to be "American farce, American farce".

[Lat-Literal]

The EU has a system which is different from our own, but it can hardly be claimed to be substantially less democratic, when our own system is not a model of responsiveness to the wishes and needs of individuals and substantial groupings.

Within the EU itself there is the realisation of a 'democratic deficit' and at various points action has been taken, including through the ECJ. An interesting résumé (ignore the lexical idiosyncrasies - Aristotle, for one, would have known better, I'm sure!).

The conclusion of the writer (an individual legal writer) is that, yes, there is a democratic deficit, mainly in the lack of transparency at the top of the organisation. My (an individual non-legal writer) conclusion is that to understand how that lack of transparency impacts directly on the citizens is to understand how deep is the problem. What may be more transparency in the UK (though not 100% even here!) puts the problem with the EU in perspective.

A system of democracy like the Athenian one, where every citizen was involved (unless they were slaves - or women?), cannot exist in the same way in any modern nation state. Groups like the ERG are anti-statist: they want less government. It is hard to see how this increases empowerment for the citizen.

For me, the key point is how far - in a general way - decisions taken in Brussels are deleterious to the interests of the individual citizen. People do not seem to realise to what extent 'tiresome EU regulations' are for their benefit, the benefit of citizens (consumer rights, worker rights, health and safety, environmental protection). You either believe 'We could do this, and better' - or you don't. Less government means handing over the power to other interests and leaving the citizens to fend for themselves.

ERG on its own would never be able to form a Government so the EU is no protection against it if one wants to put it in those terms. Nor has it ever been, although it might conceivably act as a brake on a tiny number of policies favoured by Mr Corbyn. Certainly back in 1975 when Scotland was much more Eurosceptic than the UK as a whole, with a significantly lower percentage of voters for remaining in the EEC (58-42 compared with 67-33) and the only two constituencies voting by a majority to leave (70-30 in the case of the Western Isles), SNP and Scottish Labour regarded that institution as "the bosses' state". I am not keen on policy arguments in place of arguments for democracy or even alongside them. However, it is clear to me that should there be another referendum, it will need to be conducted in an entirely different way. In particular, I have already prepared some information about Britain before 1973 so as to tackle the ignorance of most people under 50. They can then make a more informed decision on the benefits of membership. This is my list to date. I have this week had feedback from young people on some of these points in which there has been an expression of amazement. In fact, on the Scottish figures I wasn't believed until I provided evidence.

BRITAIN BEFORE EEC/EU MEMBERSHIP : 1945-1973

28 years outside the EEC/EU - the economy often on the upturn and many people upwardly mobile.
NHS created, social services broadened, pensions improved under 16 years of Tories and 12 of Labour.
Expansion of university education, many families having a first time entrant, with student grants.
First generations to buy their own homes : peak house building in 1968-69.
Clean Air Act to end smogs, Green Belt and National Parks introduced, first recycling initiatives.
Albeit belatedly and tentative, first legislation to provide fair rights to gay people plus greater equality for women.
Mr Heath welcoming Asian Ugandans - many have pictures of him in their house to this day.
First foreign holidays for many.
Enjoyment of dining in the first Indian and Chinese restaurants.
Less violent crime, less terrorism and less rioting.
Frequently a cross party consensus in Parliament.
No world wars.
A vibrant fashion industry.
British pop and rock music conquers the world.
A nationalised railways system, for better or worse (probably worse).
Car ownership massively up.
Lower prices - food prices increased overnight in 1973 on joining the EEC.
Race Relations Act 1965.
SNP strongly against EEC membership, hence UK less divided.
Expansion of radio, including the introduction of a commercial sector.
Greater success in football tournaments.
A much higher number of apprenticeships.
Until the late sixties, minimal Troubles in Northern Ireland.
Start of CPRE, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, CND, Liberty, Stonewall, Amnesty International.
Less Americanisation in High Street and media culture.
Britain kept out of the Vietnam War.
End of military service for young men.
The Open University starts.
The RPO and other British orchestras go on their first world tours.
Gap years - 18 yr olds travel to Europe to be nannies and ski instructors.
Future MPs etc educated in Europe - eg Dale Campbell Savours (Sorbonne), Iain Duncan Smith (Italy).
Families of current MPs and spouses arrive from Europe and the rest of the world.
Foreign languages taught in primary and comprehensive schools.
Concorde - a British and French initiative.
Notting Hill Carnival starts.

Among the things that membership has not prevented for better or worse : Tax avoidance and tax evasion, fracking, the mass privatisation of electricity, gas, water, telephones etc, UK companies in foreign ownership, cyclical economic downturns, the slow pace of equalities legislation, an ongoing monarchy, the House of Lords, immigration from outside the EU, the independent nuclear deterrent, the absence of proportional representation, the ongoing television licence, a widening of the poverty gap, the popularity of far right groups 21 miles across the water onward, New Labour, Post Thatcherism, UKIP, the revival of Old Labour, Mrs May, the forthcoming climate change catastrophe, Amazon taking over from the high streets, drone chaos, much mayhem from so-called Islamists, sporadic anti-Semitism, zero hours contracts, the decline of home ownership and the ongoing need for a United Nations.

[french frank]

Regarding democracy in the EU: let's imagine there were to be a general election in the UK some time in the coming months and it resulted in a Labour victory - I'm not speculating on the relative likelihood of this, but it's a scenario we can all agree is within the realms of possibility. This would almost certainly result in some rather comprehensive shifts in government policy, to say the least, if the 2017 Labour manifesto is anything to go by, with the effect of setting the country in a rather different direction than that followed since 2010. The same sort of thing would apply to most other countries in the EU mutatis mutandis. However, it could never be the case with the EU as a whole. There's never been an opportunity, for example, for the EU population to vote on the EU's policy towards Greece or its general espousal of austerity. Or am I wrong?

That's true. Though arguably the vast majority of what is governed by the EU doesn't affect, simultaneously, the majority of the citizenship of the EU. Why should one think that the UK electorate in general knows about - or cares about - a Greek situation which doesn't affect them? Never mind, let them vote anyway. Or not vote. Just leave it to the people who know about these things and have an opinion (plus those who don't but who want to vote anyway). What is completely incalculable is what the state of the Greek economy would have been if Greece had not been in the EU - with its rules - in the first place. Should the Greeks vote on how the EU applies rules which have been established to regulate all the EU countries, and say 'But not us, in our situation'?

The idea that General Elections in the UK can result in total, revolutionary (in the attenuated meaning) change in policies is not supported by evidence. The general belief of the populace in the UK based on their experience is that 'they're all the same' (and indeed the parties in government have coalesced towards something approaching a centre) and that 'whatever we vote, it doesn't change anything'. I don't believe that, in reality, it would 'almost certainly result in some rather comprehensive shifts in government policy, to say the least, if the 2017 Labour manifesto is anything to go by'. Election manifestos are neither pledges nor promises: they are political desiderata, which in (I would guess) many cases prove impossible to carry out for a variety of reasons. This is the nature of our own democracy.

[oddoneout]

political desiderata

AKA sales pitches, whose sole aim is to garner as many sales, aka votes, as possible. I look on them as an indication of things the party has no real intention of doing, or things which are known to be easily got out of if party interests demand. They are also predictable in that whatever party A says the party B manifesto will say the opposite, since there are only ever two parties in the ring to all intents and purposes.

[Joseph K]

The idea that General Elections in the UK can result in total, revolutionary (in the attenuated meaning) change in policies is not supported by evidence. The general belief of the populace in the UK based on their experience is that 'they're all the same' (and indeed the parties in government have coalesced towards something approaching a centre) and that 'whatever we vote, it doesn't change anything'. I don't believe that, in reality, it would 'almost certainly result in some rather comprehensive shifts in government policy, to say the least, if the 2017 Labour manifesto is anything to go by'. Election manifestos are neither pledges nor promises: they are political desiderata, which in (I would guess) many cases prove impossible to carry out for a variety of reasons. This is the nature of our own democracy.

What about Attlee in 45 or Thatcher in 79? These brought about great paradigm shifts... perhaps not 'revolutionary' but nonetheless, brought about great shifts in the political centre. These things are often reflected on a transnational level, the Bretton Woods agreement in the case of Attlee/Labour, and Nixon's removal of the gold standard paving the way for neoliberalism, Thatcher etc.

Nonetheless, there are examples of most of Corbyn's policies in other countries:

http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.com/2017/11/id-like-to-hear-example-of-country.html

[french frank]

What about Attlee in 45 or Thatcher in 79? These brought about great paradigm shifts... perhaps not 'revolutionary' but nonetheless, brought about great shifts in the political centre. These things are often reflected on a transnational level, the Bretton Woods agreement in the case of Attlee/Labour, and Nixon's removal of the gold standard paving the way for neoliberalism, Thatcher etc.

Nonetheless, there are examples of most of Corbyn's policies in other countries:

http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co...f-country.html

So I alter 'can' to 'might' ('The idea that General Elections in the UK might result in ...'). Two examples in 74 years. And I would consider it was the Attlee government's election, 74 years ago, that was both the most beneficial and the most lasting in cementing ideas into the national consciousness. [To my amazement, I sort of remember Mr Attlee's government, though don't recall that that accounted, in itself, for a 'leftward-leaning' attitude in my political convictions.] I might be inclined to include Wilson's government during Jenkins' spell as Home Secretary to be also worth a mention.

That Corbyn's policies (which I find entirely unproblematic) work in other countries is no guarantee that they will be allowed [sic] to work here.

[Richard Barrett]

What about Attlee in 45 or Thatcher in 79? These brought about great paradigm shifts... perhaps not 'revolutionary' but nonetheless, brought about great shifts in the political centre.

Indeed. But anyway the idea that just because something hasn't happened in the past means it won't happen in the future doesn't really apply in politics. There always comes a time when preserving some real or illusory status quo becomes impossible.

[french frank]

Indeed. But anyway the idea that just because something hasn't happened in the past means it won't happen in the future doesn't really apply in politics. There always comes a time when preserving some real or illusory status quo becomes impossible.

I'm not sure what an 'illusory status quo' is?

[Lat-Literal]

That's true. Though arguably the vast majority of what is governed by the EU doesn't affect, simultaneously, the majority of the citizenship of the EU. Why should one think that the UK electorate in general knows about - or cares about - a Greek situation which doesn't affect them? Never mind, let them vote anyway. Or not vote. Just leave it to the people who know about these things and have an opinion (plus those who don't but who want to vote anyway). What is completely incalculable is what the state of the Greek economy would have been if Greece had not been in the EU - with its rules - in the first place. Should the Greeks vote on how the EU applies rules which have been established to regulate all the EU countries, and say 'But not us, in our situation'?

The idea that General Elections in the UK can result in total, revolutionary (in the attenuated meaning) change in policies is not supported by evidence. The general belief of the populace in the UK based on their experience is that 'they're all the same' (and indeed the parties in government have coalesced towards something approaching a centre) and that 'whatever we vote, it doesn't change anything'. I don't believe that, in reality, it would 'almost certainly result in some rather comprehensive shifts in government policy, to say the least, if the 2017 Labour manifesto is anything to go by'. Election manifestos are neither pledges nor promises: they are political desiderata, which in (I would guess) many cases prove impossible to carry out for a variety of reasons. This is the nature of our own democracy.

While your points about Greece may to some extent be true, many hours in the British media were devoted to that situation with public impact. Lots of fears about Golden Dawn. Barely less hysteria about Syriza. All tied in with reporting on the ongoing Italian crisis and which country would be next either for a far right or far left resurgence and economic apocalypse.

Further background information for the referendum, this time to be presented as a Facebook game:

Members of the European Parliament for the United Kingdom, 2014–19.

How many can you name?

The full list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...014%E2%80%9319

I shall be suggesting that the leave position would be better not this time as "isn't it all terrible : the EU is responsible for all ills" but rather "EU - Left or Right : What is the Point?":

[french frank]

While your points about Greece may to some extent be true, many hours in the British media were devoted to that situation with public impact. Lots of fears about Golden Dawn. Barely less hysteria about Syriza. All tied in with reporting on the ongoing Italian crisis and which country would be next either for a far right or far left resurgence and economic apocalypse.

Cannot comment on the general media coverage other than what I read. How do you measure its impact on the British public? Did the coverage of the Greek situation overlap with the emergence of the Italian crisis? Were they equivalents? - in the face of its difficulties, Greece elected a left wing government, Italy a right wing one. Presumably because both left and right were promising to break the EU's "austerity" rules.

Members of the European Parliament for the United Kingdom, 2014–19.

How many can you name?

Mmmm. Catherine Bearder. Clare Moody. Molly Scott Cato. Nigel Farage. That's 5.5% of the 73. Could I name 35 rank-and-file MPs? Struggling.

"EU - Left or Right : What is the Point?":

Interesting binary. I'm not sure you would get agreement on whether the EU is, fundamentally, left or right, would you?

[Lat-Literal]

Cannot comment on the general media coverage other than what I read. How do you measure its impact on the British public? Did the coverage of the Greek situation overlap with the emergence of the Italian crisis? Were they equivalents? - in the face of its difficulties, Greece elected a left wing government, Italy a right wing one. Presumably because both left and right were promising to break the EU's "austerity" rules.

I wouldn't measure it as it is difficult to measure impression. My impression of the public's impression was that it looked like everything was in a mess. Which it was. I can't remember the timing but I think the Italian crisis predated the Greek crisis although the latter was much worse and also continued in parallel with it. In Italy, a PM had to be imposed by the EU. Perhaps it is possible for the EU to impose a PM on Britain at the point when it considers Mrs May has failed? Someone like Mr Blair perhaps or Mr Clegg who now governs Facebook?

Mmmm. Catherine Bearder. Clare Moody. Molly Scott Cato. Nigel Farage. That's 5.5% of the 73. Could I name 35 rank-and-file MPs? Struggling.

I have never heard of either Catherine Bearder or Clare Moody.

Let me do this exercise now. Gerard Batten because he is controversial. Campbell Bannerman is obviously a familiar name but I don't know David of that clan. David Coburn because he stood out as being the lone UKIP person in Scotland. I have heard of Labour's Richard Corbett. Nigel Farage and Daniel Hannon - both media mouthpieces. Mary Honeyball because of her unusual name. I don't know if she has ever passed me on a street. Diane James who was here today and gone tomorrow, passing everyone on every street. Jean Lambert, Green. Claude Moraes, just about, as he is London Labour. Patrick O'Flynn. Molly Scott Cato. Sion Simon. That's it. About a dozen. I don't know who leads any of the UK parties in Europe.

Most of the public would know one, two or three, maximum. And yet these in the main are the people who they will be asked to consider voting for should the UK have to be in the next European election. You can get 35 or so MPs. Well done. Most people would be hard pushed to name 15 but at least they know those when they see them. I tested myself on this the other day and was close to 150. I do on occasions watch televised Parliament. You speak about percentages. I see what you mean but I am really not quite sure that is the point here.

Interesting binary. I'm not sure you would get agreement on whether the EU is, fundamentally, left or right, would you?

It is addressing left wing and right wing voters and asking them to question what the EU really does for them. That is, in the light of the lists above, interactive games, and more besides. This informs, tests the well worn and actually very narrow media dialogues, and shifts it from goodies v baddies in whatever direction. So it wasn't a comment on the European Parliament's composition, now or in the future. Perhaps your slight misreading there shows why I am not a campaign organiser. On that, the expectations are in 2019 that the so-called centre right group will be the largest, as it is now, and the so-called centre left group will be the second largest, as it is now, but both will lose a fair number of their seats to the so-called far left, far right, greens etc. But I question the labels of centre-left and centre-right and indeed centre. They are, in my opinion, all to the right of the pre 1980s spectrums.

Has it always been so called centre right first and so called centre left second? Probably. I'm guessing. A bit like if Britain had always had a PM similar to Macmillan. Since 1957. But only a bit - a tiny bit - because we were all sent to the global economy, hence it mirrors Thatcherism and Blairism and vice versa when some of us would like to move on. Mr Barnier is a self-confessed Gaullist and he is proud of it, as happy to keep Britain in as de Gaulle was adamant we must be kept out. But then the Gaullists were Mrs Thatcher long before Mrs Thatcher.

Of course, there is regulation. Regulation of the sort which would encourage some members of the ERG to consider it is some socialist utopia. But in truth the regulation is a veneer, just pasted on top of the multinational enterprises. If Mr Corbyn is ever PM in Britain he will be something new but not as he and the public think of it. That will be the first ever pasting of a veneer of overtly leftist policy onto exactly the same right wing globalisation. In many ways, I look forward to the contortions. In many other ways I do not look forward to them one jot.

[Serial_Apologist]

I question the labels of centre-left and centre-right and indeed centre. They are, in my opinion, all to the right of the pre 1980s spectrums.

I would agree with you there, Lat. Indeed, what is regarded as the political "centre" is a shifting, essentially artificial concept, which varies from era to era, and country to country, dependent on majority voting patterns. From the point of view of elected British governments between 1979 and today, the policies of the Atlee govrnment, and even the Conservative one under Churchill that followed, would have been regarded by the main disseminators of ideology, the mainstream press, as very far to the left. What is interesting to me, because it has become a renewed factor in the resurgence of nationalism, is the determing role in politics of nation states, which had until recently long been regarded as subordinated to the activities of the global players of the economic scene, namely the multinational firms, with their ability to switch operations at the drop of a hat in maintaining their respective monopoly positions. Political commentators were of one voice in insisting that governments - which is what we're really talking about when it concerns national sovereignty, independence or whatever - were now essentially disempowered in the determination of the fates of whole peoples. This, as much as anything, I would argue, is the real reason behind the impotence of politicians to meet the large claims of their election manifestoes: passing from a time when the form of the state, and all that which constitutes it, evolved according to the needs and interests of society's dominant forces, (read, class), to one in for which it becomes the apologist and primary means of support when things get rough. Today we can see where this has led: namely to a situation in which the "political class", having effectively reconciled itself to its subordinate role and palmed off its illusory image of itself to the electorate as its representatives, has lost its way, whereas we, now, and they, for a very long time, have known in their heart of hearts that they are impotent without being able to demonstrate power - the powerful forces that were once mobiliseable now reduced to temporary voluntary election flyer deliverers and call centre reminderers. The change back to politicians being called out to deliver probably stems back to the capitalists having had to fall back on reliance on the state's ability (duty?) to fix things in the immediate wake of the banking crash of 2007/8, prior to which state backup to economic and monetary functioning had been reduced to the money supply and role of the head of the Bank of England and his equivalents abroad and in the IMF. The problem is that the politicians have forgotten how to undertake such a role. Gordon Brown may have been the last in the line.

[french frank]

In Italy, a PM had to be imposed by the EU. Perhaps it is possible for the EU to impose a PM on Britain at the point when it considers Mrs May has failed? Someone like Mr Blair perhaps or Mr Clegg who now governs Facebook?

Rather a controversial claim that the EU 'imposed' a Prime Minister, or that anyone did: Berlusconi had difficulties getting his Budget through the Italian Chamber of Deputies, barely survived a 'no confidence' vote and ended up resigning. The President appointed his successor, Monti. I think the imposition of a Prime Minister would be ultra vires even for the EU!

I have never heard of either Catherine Bearder or Clare Moody.

CB I thought the leading Liberal Democrat, but seemingly the only one. Clare Moody and Molly Scott Cato 'my' MEPs - no idea who the Tory or others are. Nigel Farage is Nigel Farage. Have heard of Batten, Hannen, Diane James and Jean Lambert but had not been aware they were current MEPs. O'Flynn I should have remembered as he defected from UKIP (along with 10 or so others), though he joined the so-called Continuity SDP.

You can get 35 or so MPs. Well done.

No, I can't. I meant 5.5% of 650 would be 35, so comparatively I could name more MEPs - if, outrageously , I ignore the ones constantly in the media like May, Rees-Mogg, Corbyn.

You speak about percentages. I see what you mean but I am really not quite sure that is the point here.

I proposed that it would be easier, all things being equal, to name 5 out of 650 than 5 out of 73.

It is addressing left wing and right wing voters and asking them to question what the EU really does for them.

I don't think they have ever been made well aware.

So it wasn't a comment on the European Parliament's composition, now or in the future. Perhaps your slight misreading there shows why I am not a campaign organiser.

I'm not even sure now what I misread!

Don't think I have much to comment on your other points …

[Serial_Apologist]

Rather a controversial claim that the EU 'imposed' a Prime Minister, or that anyone did: Berlusconi had difficulties getting his Budget through the Italian Chamber of Deputies, barely survived a 'no confidence' vote and ended up resigning. The President appointed his successor, Monti. I think the imposition of a Prime Minister would be ultra vires even for the EU!

CB I thought the leading Liberal Democrat, but seemingly the only one. Clare Moody and Molly Scott Cato 'my' MEPs - no idea who the Tory or others are. Nigel Farage is Nigel Farage. Have heard of Batten, Hannen, Diane James and Jean Lambert but had not been aware they were current MEPs. O'Flynn I should have remembered as he defected from UKIP (along with 10 or so others), though he joined the so-called Continuity SDP.

No, I can't. I meant 5.5% of 650 would be 35, so comparatively I could name more MEPs - if, outrageously , I ignore the ones constantly in the media like May, Rees-Mogg, Corbyn.

I proposed that it would be easier, all things being equal, to name 5 out of 650 than 5 out of 73.

I don't think they have ever been made well aware.

I'm not even sure now what I misread!

Don't think I have much to comment on your other points …

Jean Lambert!!! There springs a name from the past. I remember when she headed the Green Party. She was interviewed on a programme devoted to said party by Jonathan Dimbleby, who basically deconstructed its policies, which is putting it mildly, demanding in tones of spitting ridicule to know if she really thought the British electorate would consent to the hairshirt policies on offer. I must dig that old cassette out and have a re-listen sometime: there was no subsequent comeback. However, the sheer fact that I hadn't realised she is an MEP goes to ilustrate the paucity of coverage given to the EU parliament by the mainstream broadcasting media, except in times such as these. If I happen upon a conversation outside that building in Brussels, having missed the start, I always tend to assume it to be between two BBC or Channel 4 reporters!

[french frank]

I have never heard of either Catherine Bearder or Clare Moody.

Just briefly, however did I come to forget Seb Dance MEP?