Refuting Nosemonkey’s ‘Little Europeanist’ Myths
Posted: June 2nd, 2011 | Author: The Peoples Pledge Team | Filed under: The People's Pledge Blog | 50 Comments »People’s Pledge supporter Mike Hanlon has alerted us to a posting criticising our campaign on the Nosemonkey’s EUtopia blog and even sent us his replies to the points made. Mike’s rebuttal, shooting down blog author James Clive-Matthews, is so good that we wanted to share it with you (below). Enjoy!
————————————————————————-
Last Tuesday (May 24) People’s Pledge director Mark Seddon wrote a piece for the Liberal Conspiracy blog focusing primarily on the EU’s threat to civil liberties, in particular the use of the European Arrest Warrant to extradite Julian Assange. This prompted a predictably sarky, ‘oh-aren’t-I-so-superior’ sounding response from the annoyingly, faux alternative-sounding named Nosemonkeywebsite. Aggressive in tone, but lightweight in terms of intellectual content. Typical in my experience of most, if not all, ‘Little Europeanist’ output. It claimed to ‘demolish’ the various points made in favour of democratically consulting voters about EU membership on the People’s Pledge Our Case section of the website.
You be the judge as to whether the People’s Pledge’s or Nosemonkey’s various claims are the more credible. Has Nosemonkey really ‘demolished’ the arguments for a referendum? In particular, take a look at the third exchange below about the degree to which the EU imposes its laws top-down on Britain and the other EU member states. I demonstrate that the People’s Pledge is absolutely right to contend that a majority of the legislation we are subjected to has its origins in EU regulations, directives and decisions. Laws that are undemocratically imposed on us and the other member countries.
Nosemonkey is the site of James Clive-Matthews. He is a former employee of the European Commission and received an award from the European Parliament for journalism last year. So, his stuff obviously reflects the official Brussels line.
Here is my response to Nosemonkey’s critique of the People’s Pledge.
[Nosemonkey] Alerted by a rather simplistic, often factually inaccurate article over on Liberal Conspiracy, I’ve ended up checking out the new British campaign for a referendum on continued British membership of the EU, The People’s Pledge. More to the point, I’ve had a quick look at its five key arguments:
“The choice concerning our relationship with the EU is now clear: either we accept being primarily and increasingly governed from Brussels or we decide to abandon membership and negotiate a new relationship with the EU based on trade and, where this makes sense, voluntary co-operation.”
*sigh*
[MH] Note the snotty, elitist tone. What does ‘sigh’ in this context actually mean? By all means disagree with the assertion being made, but have the courage to give a meaningful and coherent reply instead of a cynical, sour student-sounding type of riposte. Why not, instead, as an advocate of EU membership, take the argument head on that Britain would prosper were it to become politically independent of Brussels? Or, why not argue that there are other viable choices available to the British people other than the two put forward above by the People’s Pledge? Again, easier to try and close down the exchange of ideas with smart-arse non-responses than to deal with the actual content of your opponent’s arguments. Perhaps, Nosemonkey is simply intellectually not equipped to do so.
[Nosemonkey] Herewith, a very quick and dirty demolition of their “5 key reasons why we must have a referendum on Britain and the EU”, originally written as a comment under that Liberal Conspiracy piece:
“No one under 54 has had the chance to vote on our relationship with Brussels.”
- And no one – full-stop – has had the chance to vote on the role of the House of Commons, House of Lords, Cabinet, Prime Minister, Civil Service, etc. etc. etc. On pretty much any aspect of the British constitution, in fact, since the Acts of Union 300+ years ago.
[MH] So, does Nosemonkey believe we should or should not have the chance to vote on EU membership, and if not, why not? He doesn’t have the courage to come out straight and say why those of us outside of the political class should not be consulted democratically about this issue. Instead, he hides in a passive-aggressive way behind the fact that we haven’t had the chance to vote on a whole range of other constitutional issues. The implication here – conveniently putting to one side the recent AV referendum – is that because we have not had a chance to vote on numerous other matters, then nor are voters entitled to have a say about the EU. Where’s the logic in that?
Perhaps, as I suspect, Nosemonkey doesn’t really like the idea of the people having the chance to vote about anything directly – scared, like a nineteenth century High Tory or a feudal-era elitist, that the great unwashed will decide to support policies he subjectively doesn’t approve of. If, contrary to my expectations, Nosemonkey does in fact believe that there should be referenda on the powers of the PM, becoming a republic, the electoral system, the composition of the second chamber and other matters – all legitimate potential questions for the electorate en masse to determine – why not then a referendum also on the EU? Why should this key constitutional issue be excluded, especially as Brussels now accounts for a majority of the laws we have to obey?
Does Nosemonkey think it was legitimate for us to have been consulted first about the Alternative Vote system, or is he one of those Lib Dem types that really wanted the coalition to just impose it on us? Does he support the idea of voters being able to initiate referenda, as happens in Switzerland and some American states? If not, why not?
I might be entirely wrong, but my suspicion is that Nosemonkey doesn’t believe – together, of course, with the whole EU political class – that ordinary voters in Britain and the member states should ever be allowed to vote on whether or not they approve of EU treaties. Presumably the French, Dutch and Irish electorates should not have been given the chance to voice their opinions in referenda on the European Constitution/Lisbon treaty. Far better that only the Euro neo-feudalists should be able to determine what the powers of the EU are and never, ever should the peoples of Europe be asked their opinions first. Systems of government, according to the EU political class, are the private preserve of the elite, not the people. This is why they are fundamentally out of sorts with the progressive revolutionary ideals of the British, French and American revolutions or the European Enlightenment, which were about collectivising the concept of sovereignty; making entire communities of people the ultimate political arbiters, not the aristocratic elite.
[Nosemonkey] “The European Union now makes a majority of the laws we must obey”
- This is simply bollocks. See, for example, the recent House of Commons Library paper (PDF) on the issue, or my old What percentage of laws come from the EU post. The true figure is more like 10-20% of laws, with regulations coming in at around 20-30%. Both figures are declining year on year.
[MH] Again, note the aggressive tone to compensate for the lack of intellectual rigour. So it’s “bollocks”, is it, that the EU initiates most UK domestic legislation? Really? In October 2010 the House of Commons Library produced a report (Research Paper 10/62) contradicting an earlier paper published 5 years previously by the same body stating that only 9% of laws were EU derived. Incredibly, the earlier study had failed to take into account EU regulations (far more numerous than directives and which, once passed in Brussels, automatically become enforced within the member states) and only totted up the number of Statutory Instruments (SIs) introduced through the European Communities Act 1972 (ECA) to transpose EU laws. Therefore, it also failed to take into account the SIs used to do this under other acts of parliament. Nor did the 2005 report include other non-legislative ways, such as changes to the internal policy regimes of organisations such as the police and quangos, by which measures determined centrally in Brussels are enacted.
The House of Commons report from last year stated that, because of a variety of logistical reasons, “it is possible to justify any measure [of EU impact on UK legislation] between 15% and 50% or whereabouts.” (page 24). However, it also produced a table on the same page showing the percentage of EU laws affecting UK legislation, which showed that in 2009 53% of domestic law was Brussels derived.
The Nosemonkeys of this world can only sustain the myth that the EU accounts for considerably less than half of domestic legislation if they persist with the self-evident fantasy that EU regulations and non-ECA SIs derived from EU directives have absolutely no impact whatsoever on UK legislation. Self-evidently a ridiculous position to adhere to.
The new House of Commons study was obviously conducted before the full force of the Lisbon treaty has been felt. This has removed the national veto in 60 new areas and so it can be confidently predicted that the percentage of EU derived law will rise in the forthcoming years as the new powers Brussels has gained kick-in. So, the People’s Pledge assertion that a majority of our laws are EU derived is clearly not “bollocks”.
Famously, the German government carried out another pre-Lisbon audit in 2005 and concluded that 84% of national legislation post 1998 was derived from EU directives and regulations. Given that Germany is a federal system and Britain a unitary state it is fair to assume that the percentage figure for Britain would be less. But 50-60% less, as Nosemonkey claims?
Regardless of what the actual percentage is for national laws derived from EU regulations, directives and decisions, it cannot be denied that Brussels now imposes hugely significant laws on us and the peoples of the other EU member countries. Even if it were the case that only somewhere between 10-30% of the laws we have to obey are EU derived, this degree of control over the lives of the British people cannot be justified because the EU lacks democratic legitimacy. We have not explicitly consented in referenda to have EU officials pass measures that are of huge significance; laws that have broken up our railway system (directive 91/440), privatised the most profitable parts of our postal service (directive 2008/06/EC), imposed the European Arrest Warrant that results in citizens being extradited without any evidence having to be submitted in court, introduced greater state electronic surveillance (directive 2006/24/EC), restricted access to 300 alternative health medicines, among numerous other measures.
[Nosemonkey] “The UK has less than 10% of the votes in the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament”
- Our representation is (approximately) in line with our population size – with population taken into account on many votes in the Council, giving the UK a very strong position. Would anything other than that be fair on the other member states with whom we are cooperating? And how much relative say do we have in the WTO, NATO or the UN?
[MH] The main point here is that even if the number of votes Britain has within the EU is proportionate to our population relative to the whole, the British people have not consented democratically in referenda to have politicians and civil servants from other jurisdictions decide laws that the UK citizens must then obey (and the same principle applies equally to the German and other European peoples who have also been made subject to Brussels rule without their explicit consent). The last 5 EU treaties have not been subject to a referendum and in the case of the 1975 referendum this was held after Britain had been taken in to the ‘Common Market’ by Edward Heath in 1972 without any public consultation.
So, according to Nosemonkey’s logic, it would be quite OK for our politicians to sign a treaty – without a prior referendum – handing over extensive control over our lives to, say, a new Sino-Indian-UK Union within which Britain had, say, 0.1% of the votes as this would be proportional to our population compared to the whole.
Nosemonkey asks how much representation we enjoy in the WTO, NATO and the UN. There is certainly a case for Britain’s membership of these bodies to be put to a referendum as well. However, a major difference between the EU and these other bodies is that they do not account for approximately half of all domestic legislation in this country, nor do they aspire to become our government – or to use the term favoured by the EU commission president, Jose Manuel Barroso, an ‘empire’ (EUobserver.com, July 11, 2007). While the WTO and the other bodies should also be subject to democratic consent, they exist to enhance voluntary international co-operation in very specific areas and do not claim to have legal supremacy over Britain and the other member countries.
[Nosemonkey] “The EU is costing Britain more and more money”
- This is justified by the classic £48m a day claim (it used to be £40m, but the exchange rate’s got worse), which is abject nonsense, based on gross rather than net, and rounded up, as shown in this old post – and is backed up by some nonsense about the cost of the Greek bailout (ignoring the British investment money that would be lost if Greece/Ireland/Portugal had been allowed to go bankrupt), and in any case ignores the wider impact of EU membership on the economy as a whole. Simplistic tosh.]
[MH] It is a matter of empirical fact that we pay £48 million a day to the audit-failing and evidently fraud-ridden accounts of the EU. Gross, that’s £17.5 billion a year, or about £9.2 billion net. Focusing on the gross figure is entirely justified because much of the money Britain gets back from Brussels is spent in ways that as a self-governing democracy we might not choose to. Would we choose freely to hand over to rich cereal barons in East Anglia the current level of handouts they get via the CAP, for example?
You, like Nosemonkey, may or may not think that handing over these sums of money to Brussels is a good use of taxpayers’ dosh. But what can’t be said while retaining any credibility is that it is ‘nonsense’ to state this fact. I understand that it is inconvenient and upsetting for Little Europeanists for the scale of Britain’s eurozone bailout liability – totalling, for the present, £12.5 billion (another fact; £500 per family) – to be made public, but again it is hardly ‘nonsense’.
The implication of Nosemonkey’s response is that there should be no limit whatsoever to the amount UK taxpayers should be obliged under Article 122 of the Lisbon Treaty to hand over to help prop up the disintegrating eurozone, because under no circumstances should Greece, Ireland and Portugal (and, if needs be, Spain, Italy, Belgium and possibly others) be allowed to go bankrupt. Nosemonkey should tell us where he would draw the line, if anywhere? £20 billion? £60 billion? £100 billion? £150 billion? He does not tell us. Perhaps he literally doesn’t think there is any limit to the amount we should hand over to Brussels.
It might be that it would indeed be a better option to encourage these countries to default and pull out of the euro, letting private lenders take most of the hit, rather than force UK taxpayers to become a bottomless cash cow for the eurozone. If, on the other hand, it does make sense for Britain to help bail-out collapsing eurozone economies, this should be a matter that is debated democratically and that an accountable government should undertake of its own volition, in much the same way the current government chose to lend additional money to Ireland on top of the EU-IMF bail-out. Does Nosemonkey believe or not believe that the electorate and their elected representatives should have any say about having to prop up the disintegrating euro?
Regarding the inference that EU membership is of benefit to the UK economy, let’s have a forensic debate about this concerning the cost to small and medium sized businesses of the EU regulatory burden, the opportunity cost of our annual budget contribution, the EU’s restrictions on global trade and the fact that the European Single Market is of declining significance to us given Europe’s falling share of World GDP and ageing populations. Nosemonkey must be aware that Britain now exports more to the fast-growing non-EU world than to the sclerotic economies within the EU empire. We need a more internationalist, more outward, less Little European, outlook if we are to prosper in the years to come.
[Nosemonkey] “The EU wants to give itself new powers of “economic governance”
- Erm… For the Eurozone. Of which Britain is not a member. Britain would only benefit by her neighbours (and major trading partners) being economically more stable and prosperous
[MH] Let’s put to one side, for one moment, the democratic implications and efficacy for the eurozone countries of having their economic and social policies dictated centrally from Brussels and Berlin (not something that Nosemonkey seems too concerned about, perhaps not surprisingly). Given that Britain, Denmark and Sweden have been forced to risk huge sums with respect to the bailouts through a disingenuous interpretation of Article 122 (that the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee has questioned the legality of), it is naive to say the least to argue that the next proposed centralisation of power by the EU elite will have no implications whatsoever for the countries that so wisely decided to stay outside of the eurozone. The EU wants, for example, all EU member countries to show their budgets to the unelected commission for approval before they can be shown to national parliaments. Herman van Rompuy says he wants to see “fiscal federalism” and the EU wants to be able to tax Europe’s citizens directly, individually (taxation without representation).
Given that German, Dutch, French, Finnish and other taxpayers are not going to be prepared to continue picking up the tab for endlessly bailing out the rest of the eurozone for years to come, it is very likely that the ECJ will find another pretext to force British taxpayers to continue handing over huge sums of cash post 2013.
I have left the following comments on the EUtopia web site:-
Most comprehenders of Thomas More’s “Utopia” would conclude that the fictitious world he created ended becoming “Dystopia”. Are you and the EU in similar danger?
I support the People’s Pledge because I believe the “ever-closer union” project of the EU will inevitably reach a point whereby the UK will become like one of the 50 states in the United States of America.
It is blindingly obvious that that is where membership of the EU is taking us, i.e. into a federalised United States of Europe.
If that is what the people of the UK want, then so be it. However, they have never been consulted on this proposal (not even in 1975) and I believe it is only right that they are asked if that is what they actually want.
This is a most important issue; much more important than cosmetic changes to our Second Chamber (which, I think, should just be abolished, anyway).
The British electorate should be allowed a once-and-for-all-time voice on this issue, especially when we see such a yawning democratic deficit at the heart of the European Project.
What is so terrible about letting the people decide on an important issue?
Incidentally, I tend to agree with you about the weight of EU regulations in the event of our re-joining EFTA and attaining European Economic Area member status.
However, it will be our choice as to whether or not we want to go down that road. It will not be forced on to us through the loss of direct sovereignty to the EU.
No one under 54 has had the chance to vote on our relationship with Brussels.”
- And no one – full-stop – has had the chance to vote on the role of the House of Commons, House of Lords, Cabinet, Prime Minister, Civil Service, etc. etc. etc. On pretty much any aspect of the British constitution, in fact, since the Acts of Union 300+ years ago.
house of commons, er, thats what they do in there, they debate what the role should be and vote on it.
We get to vote on who is in there every 5 years (we can kick them out unlike the EU commission)
The PM is voted into postion firstly by being elected as a leader by his/her party, then that party gaining more votes than any other in a general election.
(hardly no one having a vote in 300+ years really.
“The EU is costing Britain more and more money”
- This is justified by the classic £48m a day claim (it used to be £40m, but the exchange rate’s got worse), which is abject nonsense, based on gross rather than net, and rounded up, as shown in this old post – and is backed up by some nonsense about the cost of the Greek bailout (ignoring the British investment money that would be lost if Greece/Ireland/Portugal had been allowed to go bankrupt), and in any case ignores the wider impact of EU membership on the economy as a whole. Simplistic tosh.]
let me put it this way if i were to sell you £920 of 50% off in Halfords vouchers for only £1750 cash would you think thats a good deal?
every thing that is returned via the rebate comes with conditions. It must be spent on things the EU not the UK wants it to be spent on, and every penny of “EU funding” must also be matched by us. Think its more logical to keep our own money in the first place and use it where its most needed.
I see our membership of Europe being more akin to our becoming a state of the USSR than of the US but hope that I am wrong.
Nosemonkey seems the type to get anything he supports a bad name. His superior and arrogant dismissal of the self-evident is dictatorial. He represents a lot of the reasons that I dislike and, if I am honest, why I am afraid Europe.
First, a quick friendly heads-up – your blog comments system doesn’t appear to work with Firefox.
To the point, I’m in the process of replying to Mike’s very long response in the comments at my place: http://www.jcm.org.uk/blog/2011/05/the-peoples-pledge-campaign-more-lies-irrelevancies-and-distortions-from-the-british-eu-referendum-campaign/comment-page-1/
It’s going to take a while. If/when I get finished, I’ll probably turn this into a series of posts.
Needless to say, I maintain that both he and you are mistaken on all your points.
You are either being ignorant or dishonest in the points that you raise. I very much hope it’s the former – this is too important an issue for the future of both Britain and Europe for dishonesty to play any part in the debate.
On that point, at least, I hope we are agreed?
one other thing with the europhiles is why are they so scared of the debate??
What are they afraid of? every time they make a claim, we can rebute it, and give evidence to back up our rebuttal.
They like to make a barnam statement like “the advantages of the EU are self evident”, but not one of them can explain what they are. when we rebute them they love to talk over us. You saw that on radio 4 a while ago.
Another thing which i think is most relevent is that he is really slating the peoples pledge. Perhaps a reminder to him that the point of this site is not to get us out of the EU, the point is to let us vote on it Democratically.
Perhaps they fear it because it will be more difficult to interupt and speak over the will of the electorate at the ballot box.
Well done, Mike. Superb!
I trust you are a member of UKIP!
“The British electorate should be allowed a once-and-for-all-time voice on this issue”
Not on your Nelly! The Eurocrats are so devious that it would be guaranteed that they would come up with yet another scheme similar to the farce with Article 122. The EU has changed out of all recognition to the Common Market voted on in 1975 and you can bet that it will continue to change.
The Swiss have referenda on every aspect of the EU which is as it should be when a Country’s sovereignty is involved. If, indeed we do vote to secede from the EU, then it is a moot point unless we are put under similar pressure to which the Irish were put after their first referendum.
Far be it from having only one referendum, it should be enshrined in UK Law that all constitutional matters be voted on by the British People rather than just the Guardians (sic) of our democracy.
Your patronising attitude and comments may be considered as something of an irrelevance in here as EU membership is a matter of personal preference. Take it as said, the average poster on this site has thought long and hard on the subject and we have no need of your inane comments.
Just another thought that may explain this site’s attitude to the EU. I apologise for it’s simplicity but it is obvious that some people cannot understand how someone else may have a different point of view.
I am not a football enthusiast but for the sake of this example, imagine that I am a Manchester United support. Manchester United supporters are such because it is their preference. What would be the consequence if Alex Ferguson unilaterally decided that henceforth Arsene Wenger would be in sole charge of training and all new signings for MU?
I am British by birth and a Patriot by inclination. I do not accept that the sovereignty of my Country can be suborned by others without my express wish. If I should decide by virtue of a ballot to cede that sovereignty, then that is my democratic right. Until then, no amount of bluster and sleight of hand will achieve that goal.
American states already have considerably more autonomy than EU members, but American states do not claim to be independent nations.
We have signed away numerous rights and privileges to a government that has a flag, a national anthem, a president, a parliament, a police force, a military force, UN representation, a tax regime, a civil service and a diplomatic service. But unlike the American states, we pretend that we’re a proud sovereign, independent nation.
And why are they invariably so rude about it? It reminds me of people who feel they are losing an argument badly. With no further argument to support their position, they resort to mockery and insolence, the final bastions of the soundly defeated.
“First, a quick friendly heads-up – your blog comments system doesn’t appear to work with Firefox.”
Oh yes it does – I’m using it now!
I whole heartedly agree.
It certainly does work with Firefox..I use it myself!
Yes, Jim. And how many times have they refused a full cost/benefit analysis?
The blog in question merely illustrates how Europhiles live on the other side of the looking glass. Every point made by Eurorealists is dismissed without evidence and ad hominem attacks are the stable diet of all such commentators. In reality it is pointless trying to dispute with these people as they are either too unintelligent to comprehend the issues or else determined to defend the indefensible come what may. These latter are, in a very few cases, idealists who continue to believe in a so called European dream, even though it is clear that it has become a nightmare, or, more generally, those who in some way benefit from the continued existence of the EU, such as MEPs and their hangers-on. The idealists are incapable of partaking in rational argument as they have an almost religious commitment to the European project and of course a belief based on such grounds is emotional and not open to amendment by debate. Those who benefit personally will never consider placing the public good above their own interests but are actually a small, although unfortunately influential minority.
In reality we already have the necessary majority in this country of people wishing to withdraw from the EU but currently lack the means to overturn the massively pro EU political class. We should not waste our time on arguing with those with closed minds but continue to make our position clear to an increasingly supportive electorate until, as that old fraud MacMillan pointed out, events intervene and disrupt even the most powerful of political ideas.
Having now read all – please forgive me for being a little cynical. Does Nosemonkey still have his nose in the Monkey Nut EU trough?
I guess you are right, to keep the pressure on the politcians is really the right thing to do. To force the vote to happen.
Your post reminds me of Prof. Richard Dawkins on why he wont debate creationists. It just gives them a stage to pretend there is an aruement to be made for creationism. as he says “enough is enough – if you are a proffessor of Goegraphy would you debate a flat earther?”
Any arguement against a referendum on the UK’s relationship with the EU, ie an in or out choice is in itself an arguement against democracy.
Rather than argue all the points, the mere arguement that if you were a democrtically minded person you would have no objection to a referendum really puts the europhiles in a catch 22 position. It really is very hard to argue against it.
Ignorance or dishonesty? Hmmm. As a former employee of the European Commission, recipient of an award for journalism from the European Parliament, and editor of a website that appears to all intents and purposes to be an EU service rebutting eurorealist claims in a rather similar fashion to the Commission’s sporadic ‘EuroMyths’ output, I fear your reputation, Mr Nosemonkey, rather undermines your ability to throw accusations of ignorance or dishonesty at others.
I’m afraid it looks to me like you’ve never quite snapped out of the ‘groupthink’ that’s so evident to any visitors to the Brussels bubble. So much nicer in there, isn’t it, than letting the unruly and ignorant ‘plebs’ decide things. The very idea!
Come, Nosemonkey. Join the rest of us out here in the real world, where the EU is so obviously a parasite on our continent, dismantling democracies in pursuit of outdated ideology and needlessly feasting on Europe’s dwindling financial resources that could be so much better spent improving the lives of so many people in need. ie. not large corporations, agri-barons and failed politicians.
Well, he’s been given an award for journalism by the EU — so you know he’s a brown noser. Daniel Hannan, or Mary Ellen Synon (of the Euroseptic blog) will never, ever win an award from the EU.
It seems there you go mr Nosemonkey, if you are able to dig out your nose from the EU trough.
So can you produce an arguement stating why we should pay £17.5 billion to the the EU.
you do say thats gross but what do £7.7 billion of 50% off at specsavers really matter here, think about that so we are now down £9.2 billion, and we could have kept it and we also could have kept the £7.7 billion as cash insead of half price vouchers in a store a lost of the population of the country dont need to use.
Thats right nosemonkey my eyes are still 20/20, and the second you try to spin those eyes they will know
I don’t bother to argue on line too much but send a short sharp letter to 10 Downing St. They don’t bother to reply but as a copy is posted on UKIP SW website, everyone knows.
Last week, the Bank of England lost its independence. Three new EU unelected quangos are in charge of all financial dealings in the UK. Hence, we now cannot adjust interest rates to suit the economy unless we ask ‘ permission’. Amazingly, nothing in the national papers or the BBC news mentions this. Get writing ! Stuart Guppy St. Ives Cornwall
Nosemonkey, why would you object to a referendum? Do you believe in democracy at all? Do you believe that the people should be permitted to govern themselves? Then why would you object to a referendum?
Even if you think we should remain members of the EU, like Caroline Lucas and a number of other supporters of The People’s Pledge, surely you must see that it would clear the air and put the question to rest?
Unless you feel that the people cannot be relied upon to make decisions for themselves, but in that case, how can they be relied upon to decide anything at all? How can we be relied upon to decide between the election policies of the Labour party or the Conservative party, but not be relied upon to decide on Britain’s role within the EU?
An argument against an In/Out referendum is an argument against democracy itself. If you do not believe in democracy, and you think the people should subject themselves to the rule of a non-accountable elite, then an argument against an In/Out referendum could have some merit.
But if you think the people should be permitted some say in how they are governed, your argument against a referendum really has no merit whatever.
I have now posted the following comments on the NM web site:-
Listening to Radio 4 yesterday evening, it seems a further Greek bailout is being canvassed again.
Presumably, we in the UK will be expected to contribute towards the bailout in some way?
It also became apparent that – yet again – this situation is being exploited to achieve “ever-closer-union” by Eurocrats, who want to use this situation to “harmonise” fiscal policies among all EU member-states.
These people never waste an opportunity to turn a crisis to their advantage, do they?
Yet again, their good old ratchet effect is being pursued, is it not?
Quite simply, I believe the EU is becoming an unaffordable luxury for the UK to have to support, especially at a time when long-cherished institutions like our NHS and social care are coming increasingly under threat.
Is this what we really want?
Stuart,
As you say, there appears to be no media coverage of your report that ‘Last week, the Bank of England lost its independence. Three new EU unelected quangos are in charge of all financial dealings in the UK. Hence, we now cannot adjust interest rates to suit the economy unless we ask ‘ permission’.’
Can you provide us all with a web-link on this, so we can all scrutinise the original source of this information?
If this is true then this country has just been grabbed by the nuts. We have to get out of europe fast,that is a crazy capitulation by our leaders, its like giving your wallet to a load of drunks,,,,,madness
Ukip must not generalise. Figures broken down to the bloke opposite in the pub ,train etc. the only succinct figure is £48millions per day NATIONALLY what is wanted is what comes out of his pocket and how much fatter it would be. Something to get hold of- Politician speak is like a blanket punch it and it takes up its original form.
Playing devil’s advocate: payment of £48 million per day equates to less than 70 pence per day per UK citizen.
Some might argue that this is a very cheap price for obtaining guaranteed access to EU markets.
How would you respond to this line of approach if made by Eurofanatics?
http://nortonview.wordpress.com/2011/05/03/the-case-against-referendums/
Hello nosemonkey,,,sorry if you think i am being rude….but would it be possible to address you by your real name, or dont you want to.
would it also be tiresome to ask why a man with your “intelligence”?is willing to spend so much time and trouble creating a web sight that is so one sided and biased. You cannot be a stupid person.
Are you doing it for yourself or for other interests.I have my suspicions about you nosemonkey.
If my suspicions are correct, then this campaign is starting to worry people.
keep it up daily express…its working
I have posted the following submission to Philip Norton’s web site in response to the
web link posted below by bobbynonikki:-
I knew Professor Philip Norton when he was President of the Politics Association and he always made it completely clear then that he was a political conservative.
As such, it meant that he believed that there had to be very good reasons for any form of change, particularly those which involve significant constitutional change.
I tend to agree that referenda should only be employed for truly significant issues (though local iniatives could be employed for significant local issues).
The point about plebiscites – particularly the one made about an Austrian house painter – simply highlights the need for complete impartiality on the part of the mass media, most specifically the BBC.
Hitler’s plebiscitory “successes” have to be viewed in the actual context of a regime which exercised complete control over all forms of media and had banned all alternative forms of political expression. This is not, therefore, a valid form of objection to referenda.
I was out of the country when the 1975 referendum on continuing UK membership of the then EEC was held so I cannot comment on what has actually happening here during that referendum campaign.
However, I think it is now clear that the aspect of “ever-closer-union” was never spelled out properly to the UK electorate on that occasion and I believe if this had been properly explained to the British people they would probably have voted to come out of the EEC.
Cameron and Clegg have both, at different times, opined that there should be a once-and-for-all-times referendum on continuing UK membership of the EU.
The People’s Pledge has been established to campaign for just this sort of referendum and to pressurise prospective MPs to sign up to a pledge for such a referendum.
Such a referendum will provide finality on this issue.
I do not mind if we stay in or leave the EU but I do believe that the British people should be allowed a say in the matter. If nothing else, it will bring closure to the debate as to whether or not we should stay in the EU.
We live in a different world compared to even as recently as 20 years ago.
The traditional model of representative democracy no longer works today.
People today expect to be consulted on important matters as no party’s manifesto can possibly provide the degree of differentiation required for people to express complete support for all their policy commitments.
In an age of Twitter and Facebook, mass involvement in democracy is no longer impossible. We should embrace the future now.
So, Bobbynonikki, in a nutshell, you do believe that the people cannot be trusted. For a variety of reasons, people should not be permitted to have referendums because they might vote for the wrong sort of decision.
Unfortunately, your link doesn’t really answer my question. I wasn’t asking for reasons why referendums are bad (I’m well aware of the excuses that you people trot out). I was asking how you reconcile withholding referendums with the democratic principle –which is not the same thing at all.
So let me restate it: if we cannot be trusted to make sensible decisions about our membership of the EU, how can we be trusted to choose between the Tory or the Labour party in a general election? Or, for that matter, between European Parliament political groups at the European elections (you know – the ones the EU has to advertise on TV to get people to actually vote in)?
How can we be relied upon to choose between Labour or Tory economic policy? or foreign policy? or tax policy?
If we can’t be relied upon to make a decision regarded our membership of the EU, how can we be relied upon to make a decision upon anything at all? If we can’t be trusted with a referendum, how can we be trusted with a general election?
As I said, every argument against a referendum is an argument against democracy itself. The only justifications for withholding a referendum are justifications for autocracy.
Have you a response to my question, as opposed to what you would like my question to be? If so, you’ll be the first person who does.
In the first place, our access is guaranteed by the World Trade Organisation, which does not make our membership of the EU a prerequisite. The suggestion that European markets would suddenly become inaccessible to British products is simply unfounded scaremongering.
In the second place, Britain’s deficit with the EU is vast — Europe exports far more to the UK than vice versa. If Europe wanted to play silly buggers in the event of Britain’s resignation from the EU, Britain could hurt Europe’s economies far more than they could hurt us. And they know it.
Britain’s deficit is even vaster when you consider that Rotterdam is one of the world’s largest ports. Much of Britain’s so-called “exports” to the Netherlands are in fact merely crossing the channel to Rotterdam, where they will be transferred aboard another ship bound for somewhere else.
This is why the federasts so frequently claim that “Britain exports more to Holland than to [insert some very big, influential country that Britain doesn't actually export much to -- Brazil is a good one, or Russia, or China]“. But while these figures make the deficit look less appalling, they do not represent income from the EU, and this income probably would not be affected by Britain’s relationship with the EU. Indeed, independent of Europe’s regulations and free to trade with whomever we please, it might well increase.
Finally, given that Greenland withdrew from the EU in the 1980′s, and was permitted continued access to European markets (since when, it has prospered), sanctions against the UK would be hard to justify legally. I have my doubts that the EU would even want to get involved in a vast legal battle that it might lose. Far easier just to put on a big smile and look generous.
A simple response. Even if they paid ME 70p a day, I did not ask for it, I do not want it.
I agree that 70p a day is too much. Our sovereignty is far mar important than money. People who want to stay in Europe seem always to think in terms of money but rarely of what it costs us in extra public services, loss of farm land due to building, implementing excessive laws and regulations etc.
Occasionally we hear about the “peace” that has pervaded Europe since the EU got under way and the wonderful human rights that have been implemented. But remember, it was not this country that caused the wars and nor was our human rights record so abysmal.
Debate sbout Europe has been dishonest from the start and shows no sign of changing any time soon.
Ian C. Mr Nosemonkey would npot know thw real world if it hit him in the face.That “Gentleman”, ranks among other EU “ex employeesd” like Neil Kinnock, Britten, and others, who will lose their perks pensions if we leave the control of the unelected members of the European Commiossion, who are still without giving any of the countries involved in this U.S.S.R type union, an account of where millions and millions of pounds have disappeared to.
Perhaps, as an ex EU “insider”, he could acqauint us with the expenses scandal, which was so vast, that even the commissioners had to step in, and made as many as would sign, a pledge not to ” tell anyone”.
For all his alleged misdemeanours,surfacing today, a Libdem MEP, refused to sign. Tell us about that cover up Mr Nosemonkey, again, as an insider, please tell us about the so far untold details , of the sacking of Martea Andersson, Treasurere of the EU,whos only crime was to ask the then Commisioner, Neil Kinnock, for an enquirty into corruption. The ral reason has never been revealed, and Marta Andersson is still fighting for her wrongfull dismissal, meanwhile the Kinnock family has taken over. Tell us about it, Mr Nosemonkey,or will that threaten yours pension also.
Hi J Wyatt, Reason for toys being thrown out of pram, we come out of the EU, he loses his EU pension. As simpkle as that.
We have to pay for our pensions, they donot, we pay it for him,along with Kinnock, Britten, and all the opther MEPs and ex Commissioners, all passengers on the EDU Gravy train.
Just think of the money we would not have to spend sup[porting these parasites.
Mike, if not, ukip.org, cpould open yopurs and may other eyes.
Yes Colin, and lets face it, it was that old fraud, along with that other fraud Heath, with his bare faced lies that has got us into this mess. Being Tories, the last people to castigate them are the Tory party, who know full well that it was their party that did the deed, albeit, at least, Heath had the courage to admit he had indeed “misled” the British people, for a gift of £35.000 labelled the Charlemagne prize. ( Blair wa also in line for this same ” prize,”, but perhaps it was peanuts to him.)
Untill the Tory party accepts blame, then we will never ger a referendum from them in reltion to the EU.
Anyone notice that the edifice of independant journalism, the B.B.C. never broadcast that information on their 6 0clock, or ten oclock news, talk about censorship, nearly as good as Brussels.
John. Has anyone thought of sending David Cameron a fiddle, so that he can, like Nero, fiddle while we go under, best send one to Clegg as well, dont want him gettting jealous,
70 pence a day, does not cover the bailouts, the abuse of the asylum system by ther EU countries who like the NIMBYs that we hear so much about, shove them over to us,then get the EU courts to stop us sending them back, that does not come into the finacial equation, and seventy pence a day, for evry man woman and child in our country, including all those who have arrived here to take advantage of our pathetic politicians, and as to trade, with what.
Fishing has all but gone, to the EU, car manufacturing, gone to the EU, and Japan, ( Thanks to union bloody mindedness, ) Airctaft industry, gone to the EU, and America,Coal, gone to the EU, Shipbuilding, gone to the EU, Steel works, gone to the EU and India, now the Tote, Gone to the EU,farming, controlled by the EU,and now banking, gone to the EU, perhaps our politicians might wake up, when they realise that they are being controlled by the EU. Perhaps they do, and are being well paid for it.
If it is only seventy pence a day, why is the EU so determioned that we do not get a choice. Eight Million Euros were used by Barroso to get his way,so, its not only the seventy p a day, itrs our last vestiges of freedom, thgat we have fought for, in two world wars, leaving cemetries in tyhose EU countries, which must get right up their noses, knowing that they surrenderec without a fight, leaving it all to us. Thats why we need to get away from this dictatporship, else the value of that life loss, is pointless.
Its revenge time in the EU, if only peole would look further, into history, two warld wars, when Germany wanted to rule the worlkd,France, at Wayterloo, and Agincourt, Russia at Sebastapool, Spain, in their Armada, thay have all tried at some time or other in history, to rule over us, and did not succeed, untill the British graewsball polticians surfaced, and sold us out. Never mind the seventy p a day, lets have our say. Thatsall we want. If it goes pear shaped for the EU, then tough.
If we did come out of the EU, then our contributions, stopping would cause consternation in the EU, as we are rapidly becoming the bale out country of the worpld bar none.
Sorry about typing, once again, wrong glasses, still have not got that new keyboard with the letters printed on it, and bloody mad that we are still no nearer than penetrating that closed mind of our so called leader.
Cameron really must be getting worried. By taking fiscal policy away from the Bank of England, he is accelerating change to make it more difficult to secede from the EU. Without the oversight of the Bank of England, we will be kept in the dark about what is going on with our Nation’s finances.
I do not know about how anyone else feels, but I am getting truly worried with his political chicanery. He must be stopped by one means or another from making any more changes and indeed, reverse this further betrayal of sovereignty.
I really wish I had the wherewithal to organise mass protest because time is becoming desperately short. I hate to say this, but I feel that we are all wasting our time here with the pledge as it is obvious that Cameron is being advised (he does not have the intellect to think of it himself)by the EU. He is trying to establish a situation of ‘fait accompli’ in which we will be unable to demand a referendum.
Please, if any of you people out there have the ability to organise protests, I would suggest that time is very short indeed.
Possibly they didn’t broadcast it because it’s not true?
Has anyone found a single link to a story citing sources for this claim?
For John Bodkin:
I had a small period of *unpaid* work experience at the European Commission 15 years ago. At which time I was a hard eurosceptic (I voted UKIP in the 1999 European elections).
There is no pension involved, as I never earned any money from the job.
Indeed, I have never received *any* money from the European Commission. At all.
In fact, the only money I have ever received from the EU was the prize money for that award they gave me. For a piece I had written entirely independently, with no solicitation, more than a year earlier.
As for being a Brussels insider, I’ve spent no more than 5 weeks in Brussels total in my entire life. I’ve spent more time in Tokyo.
Believe what you like, but I have no vested interest – other than wanting Britain to remain a prosperous, pleasant place to live.
According to my history we won two world wars Germany lost two, the french capitulated twice as did most of Europe, The Swiss stayed out as per usual and everyone else said what can we do?. Well for once we can get out of the EU tell D.C. where to go in the next election and I am now going to vote UKIP when the next election comes.
If you look at his twitter site (seems to have given up blogging) you will see right now he is following the rugby world cup. He’s praising Ireland and snearing about England.
Methinks just another “anyone else but England” Celtic chip on shoulder merchant masquerading as something else.