By Philip Chaston (anarchfree@hotmail.com) |
Link
|
The Top
|
The Way Forward
It is now clear that the European elections cannot be examined without reference to the local and metropolitan elections that were conducted at the same time. The Labour Party provided some imaginative wheezes, hoping that the increased turnout, would soften the blow of the protest vote that they expected. Instead, they will be looking very closely at the effects of linking two or more elections. This linkage was one of the main reasons why the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) polled more votes. Since voters had already expended one vote on national issues, a significant proportion were able to assess the European elections on a European basis.
The long-lasting irony of this result is that the European elections in Britain were probably decided by voters who cast their votes on what they thought of the European Union rather than as a protest against their own national parties. Hence, the upsurge in UKIP's support. However, the election was also structured by a more traditional protest vote which helped UKIP and led to an increase in support for the Liberal Democrats.
Whilst UKIP has the initials, it remains a party of England, rather than of the Celtic fringe. Nationalist parties slumped in Scotland and Wales but UKIP does not appear to have made inroads into the quiet Tory resurgence that is reviving the party in these countries. More telling of UKIP's radicalism is the presence of a party organisation in Northern Ireland, although they still polled less than the Progressive Unionist Party at 2.9%. (Note that the BBC does not publicise the name of their candidate). At least, they are not observing the redundant conventions of the major parties that deny Northern Irish voters the opportunity to vote Labour or Tory, although you could call that a blessing.
Therefore, UKIP, the party of disaffection and rejection, follows in geography and vote, the Tory core, notwithstanding its ability to hoover up Eurosceptic votes from other parties. This model is Howard's greatest challenge in the run-up to the next election. The UKIP vote is a warning that the Tory grassroots remain far more Eurosceptic than the Parliamentary Party. Yet, Howard and his strategy of triangulation, is the only game in town. A rejectionist manifesto would demonstrate that the Tory leadership is weak, that the party remains vulnerable to a faction, and that its divisions had not been healed. Floating voters shy away from a divided party, and a lurch in a Eurosceptic direction, would jeopardise the Tory revival.
UKIP also faces a number of unpalatable outcomes. The party leadership know that they will not achieve a similar breakthrough in votes at the general election. However, if they run against the Conservatives, they may provide the same role as the Referendum Party did in 1997, guaranteeing another Labour majority.
Both parties should assess the outcome of these elections very carefully. In 1997, tactical voting, aided by an informal understanding between Labour and the Liberal Democrats, magnified the "anyone but the Tories" reaction. The local elections appear to indicate that a similar phenomenon is taking shape, but that the boot is kicking Labour. If history is a guide, both parties should take to heart the lessons of the last two general elections and strive to come to an informal understanding on tactical voting that will achieve the primary precondition for any Eurosceptic political action: removing the Blair administration at the next general election.
Interviewer: So Mr Howard does the Conservative Party definitively rule out withdrawal?
Howard: Let me make this entirely clear, the Conservative Party is committed to continued membership of the European Union. We believe that it is best for our trade and investment. However, we will be tough with the European Union to ensure that it is still in Britain's interest to remain a member.
Although we would avoid withdrawal only an utterly irresponsible Prime Minister would ever rule it out no matter what deal they offer us. Parliament will always have the power to withdraw from the EU. Europe needs us more than we need them, after all they run a massive permanent trade surplus with us - does anyone think that they are stupid enough to put so many of their workers on the dole queue?
So while I reject withdrawal as an aim in itself, I think that the price is far too high, it may be a means.
By Philip Chaston (anarchfree@hotmail.com) |
Link
|
The Top
|
The LibDem Favour
For foreign observers of the local elections, the narrative adopted will mirror that of the Liberal Democrats rather than the Conservatives or the mainstream press. The vicious withdrawal of support from the Labour Government can be traced to public disillusion, in which Iraq plays a part, but it is only another stepping stone on the long retreat from the political dominance achieved in 1997. That is why the "midterm blues" model, beloved of the BBC and Labour, does not fit the current psephological phenomena.
In the Arab World, Labour's drubbing is predictably caused by an anti-war and anti-Iraq vote: as Al-Jazeera's original report on the run-up to the elections made clear. A quick survey of other titles from India, the United States and the old Commonwealth, clearly show the reaction of the press to Labour's third place in the polls. The words, 'kicking', 'bloody nose' and 'Iraq' are all interchangeable.
We should be careful about citing Iraq as the major cause of Labour's defeat. It acts as a shorthand in the press for the disillusionment and disaffection that many show towards Blair's administration: qualities that were demonstrated just as clearly in 2001, without a war to spur them on. The causes of Labour's defeat are primarily domestic and the Tories still have a large mountain to climb before they can overcome the electoral handicaps of a shires party.
This election, just like the results published on Sunday, will affect foreign policy. First of all, those who backed Iraq as a campaign issue, will argue that the strategy worked and tapped into the disgust of the British electorate. They have to justify their choices. Secondly, this will ensure that Iraq, and, as a corollary, the alliance with America, will be questioned more often in the future, usually in relation to the preferred alternative of the critics, the European Union.
Foreign policy may become a more partisan and open debate. If the liberal Democrats can only offer 'Europe' as a viable alternative to a deeply sceptical public, the opportunity may exist for a Third Way: neither America nor Europe. Only time will tell if such an opportunity exists.
If you were to press a right wing Conservative why if they are in favour of withdrawal from the EU (and how many nowadays are not, in private?) whey did/would they have voted Yes in 1975 they go away puzzled. Even the growing number of Eurosceptics too young to vote know in their hearts that they would have voted Yes. So why?
Similarly go to the same right wing Tory, who is likely as not to support British membership of NATO, what problem NATO is trying to solve - he will also stutter and stammer. Britain can obviously be subservient to the US outside NATO, as she has been in Iraq - what useful purpose does it serve?
Well the answer is obvious. The Cold War. British involvement in these institutions made perfect sense if you believed that Russia was posed to take over Western Europe and use that as a launch pad for invading Blighty. Some rather right wing people, like Enoch Powell or General De Gaulle, were sceptical of this and so tended to be more sceptical of these institutions than there more credulous (and I do not mean this in a derogatory way) right wing colleagues.
Which brings us to Reagan. Reagan's arms build up bankrupted Russia and forced her to drastically cut back on her overseas military presence and her attachment to Marxism. Russian aggression in Chechnya is not as frightening as Russian aid to the Vietcong. Whatever one's view of the Cold War, one can agree that it is over. And that is thanks to Reagan.
So back to NATO and the EU. These two institutions made plenty of sense when Russian tanks were on the Oder and Danube. They don't make sense now. This seemingly obvious statement has massive implications for the British right. It is not good enough to point to cultural comminalities and a roughly equivalent language and hope that these will override strategic realities. Nor is it to look longingly at America's greater economic freedom and make the leap that this must mean that she has the same national interests as we do (come to think of it, how many British Anglospheracists aren't also recognisable Thatcherites?). Nor can we accept, however naturally it comes to a conservative, that what worked well in the past should not be disturbed.
Ronald Reagan bequeathed a world where Britain can again be independent of America. It would be churlish not to accept that present.
Advising Airstrip One readers how to vote is probably one of the least effective things one could ever do. Firstly you are a rather, ahem, select bunch. I prefer to think of you as the remnant, others would be more vulgar and just say that we have a small readership. The other reason is that the sort of people who not only understand the importance of British independence, but can also follow the argument tend to make up their own minds when voting. I'm glad this is not Samizdata, but I do have my regrets.
However, I will still go ahead and say who I will vote for and why I have reservations about my choice. Firstly however I will say who I will not vote for. Labour has been a disaster for this country and it's independence. With Blair it's not even been the competing treachery argument of whether our independence should be given away to Europe or America, they've done both. They deserve to be punished.
On the competing treachery question I don't think that there is one contributor to Airstrip One who does not see Europe as a more invasive and immediate threat than America. On that basis the Liberal Democrats - and various Celtic nationalists - are also out (although they are better than Labour).
RESPECT are laughable, and if they were to get an MEP then the anti-war movement would be stuck with this albatross of socialism and America hatred forever.
The BNP should be ruled out for different reasons. As both BNP sympathisers and opponents of this blog have pointed out their foreign policy is hostile to Europe and America. However I disagree strongly with their flat earth trade policy (and general ignorance of the benefits of a market economy) and their immigration and repatriation policy manages to be both vindictive and daft. There's also a sneaking feeling that while they have certainly cleaned up their public act there are still the same old boneheads - and should the cause of British Independence be linked with the fash? Try arguing for tighter immigration controls and count the number of sentences before you are accused of supporting the BNP, and you will see what I mean about the danger of the BNP hijacking the case for a patriotic foreign policy.
So the choice is between UKIP and the Tories. Both parties are too close to America, so I will come on to this subject later. On Europe the Tories actually deserve a lot more credit than they are getting. They are actually calling for repatriation of European powers, although as these are fishing policy and foreign aid where only a European Commisioner could pretend that Europe has succeeded in these areas. The government is also proposing repatriation of powers, on the more radical area of regional policy. However repatriation of powers is being publicly broached, and the Tories deserve credit for this.
The Tories also deserve credit for blocking the constitution. IDS's supposed obsession with this meant that Blair found himself with little other option than to concede this point (after Howard took over) before the Euro elections.
However the question is whether the Tories go far enough when there is a perfectly acceptable and electable alternative. The Conservatives still wish to remain in the EU (although they avoid saying "forever") while UKIP doesn't. The Tory representatives will still sit in the European People's Party, an avowedly Federalist party, despite earlier efforts to extricate themselves from it - and Michael Howard is now a patron of the Federalist Tory Reform Group. It is not unfair to say that UKIP would not exist if Ken Clarke were retiring - so why is Howard bringing him forward.
The Tories have brought on themselves. In this election it is UKIP that deserve's your vote. They will fight like ferrets as soon as this is over, they are far too pro-American (there is a good - but sadly off line - article in the New Statesman about their commitment to America, there's also a back handed compliment from pro-war Nick Cohen saying that little Englanders provide the "only unanswerable" antiwar case) and they won't win in Westminster. But the European Parliament is a joke that's elected by Proportional Representation.
By Philip Chaston (anarchfree@hotmail.com) |
Link
|
The Top
|
Fat Pang of the Remove
With his owlish features and acknowledged desire to reinforce the low opinion held of him in Britain, Chris Patten has decided to respond to the mocking remarks that almost propelled Jack Straw into the Eurorealist camp.
After spending so many years away from home, he appears to have developed the thin skin that you expect from the proselytisers of victimhood, rather than an ex-Tory Minister. He has taken up his pen and written a response to Straw explaining that his words are "inappropriate" and have caused offence. Who ever said that Europeans didn't have a sense of humour!
The Guardian article is green stuff, as their recycling mentality has been extended to the news and the environment. Thankfully, Euractiv had more detail on the missive. Chris Patten praises the efforts of the Euro-pygmies in bringing the benefits of Yoorp to natives crying out for subsidies and a dependency culture:
While underling that there is no Commission ambition to become "some sort of twenty sixth Member State", Patten goes on to praise the work that the 123 Commission delegations carry out in "detailed trade and other negotiations [...] high quality political and economic reporting [...] delivering over 5 billion Euro's of external and development assistance in support of the EU's agreed goals [...] in places as far-flung and as difficult as Afghanistan, Somalia and New Guinea".
Patten has demonstrated that his antennae no longer follow British politics. Ensconced in Europe for too many years, he cannot recognise the flanking rhetoric of a Europhile government. Unless he longs for Charles Kennedy as PM, he has long drifted away from the orbit of the Tory party.
What is more shameful: the sight of a former Tory gone native, reduced to ridicule; or the mugging of Eurosceptic discourse by a government that wants to be a part of Europe and propagandise a myth of sovereignty on the home front. Patten is a disgrace to all former Tories, amongst whom, I include myself.
By Philip Chaston (anarchfree@hotmail.com) |
Link
|
The Top
|
He's done a Hutton on the pavement
The Guardian is currently publishing a series of strong articles on Britain's place in the world. Disagreeable they may be, but worth reading. The latest is an extract from Timothy Garton Ash's "Free World: Why a Crisis of the West Reveals the Opportunity of Our Time", to be published in July.
Garton Ash, a liberal whose reportage on Eastern Europe is always worth reading, argues that Britain should find a new role by balancing the best of the Old World and the New. The whole piece is laminated with a patina of idealism that leavs you thinking Garton Ash lives behind a rose-tinted mirror looking out at the world. Who else would write this:
We need a revolt of the politicians, who should finally summon the courage to face down the media barons. But we also need a revolt of the journalists. After all, journalists, not proprietors, actually write and edit these papers.
A Britain thus politically focused, educated and informed would have notable strengths. Being so intimate with Europe and America means we have the chance to take the best of both.
The concept that our politicians and journalists are revolting is quite common; unique is that perception that this quality may have positive consequences.
Garton Ash falls into the post-imperial trap of viewing Britain as a far more influential and powerful player than we actually are, based upon the foundations of our influence in Europe and America. In reality, the article becomes an apologia for Blairite strategy in Europe, the new Third Way clothed in the ideology of Europe.
Tony Blair has grasped and articulated this British national interest, role and chance better than any of his predecessors.
What we need is nothing less than a historic compromise with our ancient enemy, France. Britain alone is too small and weak to be a major partner for the US, especially since American leaders generally feel they can take the British for granted.
Crucial to this new understanding will be the voice of Germany. In its own enlightened self-interest, Germany should play the role of "honest broker" between France and Britain. This alone will allow it to continue its own balancing act between Paris and Washington, which has served the Federal Republic so well. America, too, should support this reconciliation in its own enlightened self-interest.
When the structural mist is deciphered, Garton Ash has written an article explaining why he thinks Blair's approach is best. This is probably expanded upon with historical argument and example in his new book.
What if France doen't wish to compromise? What if Britain, home of chavs, declines to follow the path of self enlightenment as plotted by Garton Ash? What if the Germans prove duplicitous? With so many unknowns, Garton Ash unwittingly exposes the flaws in Blair's foreign policy.
By Philip Chaston (anarchfree@hotmail.com) |
Link
|
The Top
|
Remembrance and Reconciliation
As I mentioned in yesterday's posting, the historical events surrounding D-Day have been subject to a revisionist retelling of teh Second World War. In its milder variant, it is a self-congratulatory extension of the European ideology, where 'liberation' is a European, rather than a purely national experience. Freud would be delighted to learn that even the Germans were liberated from themselves.
Denis Boyles in the National Review chronicles this move of D-Day into an artificial story where the victors and the defeated stand together. The French are embittered:
Le Monde took advantage of an arte television documentary showing D-Day from the German perspective to explain that the Allies in Normandy were slipshod and mismanaged because their leaders were inept, a point of view that suggests to the French a certain similarity to Iraq.
The most influential media are contributing strongly to the generous mood by avoiding national self-pity and voicing admiration for the allies, dwelling on the awesome logistics and statistics of D-day.
The public TV channel ZDF is screening a five-part documentary series called simply Liberation.
The news magazines Stern and Der Spiegel have the D-day landings on their covers this week, contrasting the heroics of the longest day with the dysfunctionality of the Nazi regime - Adolf Hitler slept through the invasion at his Berchtesgaden eyrie, his aides too frightened to wake him. And Erwin Rommel, the "Desert Fox", who was in charge of organising the defence of France, spent D-day in the forests of south-west Germany celebrating his wife's 50th birthday.
Should we support this narrative if it obscures the sacrifices and deaths that the Allies suffered in order to snuff out the Nazi regime? That is irrelevant. This whole concept of the Grand Crusade has proved colossally damaging to the realist cause, since rose-tinted glasses and moral ballast have prevented many from critically assessing what happened to bring us to where we are now.
By Philip Chaston (anarchfree@hotmail.com) |
Link
|
The Top
|
Edward VII is to blame
Occasionally, the Guardian will print an article that sits at odds with its post-modern take on our world, where all history is invented and all culture is a construct. Hywel Williams, writing in the shadows of D-Day's anniversary, ignores this theoretical scaffolding and plunges into millennia of cultural conditioning - of the type beloved by Anglospherical anthropologists.
His excursion starts with "where did it all go wrong" and concludes, correctly, that 1940 was the year that Britain became a European country:
The collapse of France in the spring of 1940 turned Britain into an European country within a matter of days. Much against its will, Britain was forced into being a truly continental power. Had it remained such a power in the four years that followed, Britain and its empire would have followed the French and theirs.
However, the unique experiences of the war divided Britain from the Continent and set the stage for Britain to cement its role as the junior partner of the United States, a role that the elite grips as a comfort blanket to shield them from the need to act independently.
Williams meanders across a thousand years of European history and argues that the Anglo-American invasion is a revisitation from the Norsemen, whose historical role French identity ignores in its 'turn to the south' and identification as a Latin country. Whilst Anglo-American soldiers may have shown some Viking tendencies (given the revisionist "European" coverage in newspapers that emphasizes French hostility and plays up the 'civilised role' of the Germans), it is doubtful that the liberation can be cast in such terms.
The use of such cultural explanations are always troublesome and panders to cultural conservatives who identify a Herderesque essentialism within the way we live that the rest of us are blinded to by deracination, cosmopolitanism, mongrelism, rationalism or some other mote.
Williams other paragraph of note argues that the Entente Cordiale is a mistake:
Resentment at the French for having got us into this mess in the first place has been a powerful current in postwar British life and politics. Historically, British foreign policy had been based on the existence of a strong and independent France. Britain had always used the European states' fear of French might as a convenient justification for its own juggling system of alliances.
A strong France, standing in an adversarial relationship to the British, had therefore been to Britain's competitive advantage. And that system of strength and security through rivalry had only broken down when the two countries were foolish enough to sign the entente cordiale of 1904.
That disastrous alliance had issued from Edward VII's boulevardier enjoyment of chorus girls and French food. But its more concrete consequence was the accentuation of the German neurotic fear that the two powers were out to get them; 1904 led directly to 1914.
Whilst there is a case to be made for viewing the Entente Cordiale as a disastrous entanglement, the blame must be laid at the destabilising consequences of German unification, and the attempts of an enfeebled France in relative demographic decline to counteract this through alliances with Britain and Russia. Even the European Union is the latest incarnation of the struggle by continental powers to cope with a strong German power at the centre of Europe.
Does Britain require intervention in Europe to prevent the rise of a unified continent, the siren call that led to the disastrous alliances and entanglements of the twentieth century. Or do weapons of mass destruction change the terms of power and allow Britain to coexist peacefully with a unified Europe, secure in the knowledge that we should remain divorced from post-modern polities?
Free Life Commentary, an independent journal of comment published on the Internet Editor: Sean Gabb Issue Number 123 1st June 2004 Hear this article read by Sean Gabb
Vote UKIP for a Better Tory Government by Sean Gabb
That Michael Howard is the best Conservative leader since Margaret Thatcher is an undeniable if also unflattering proposition. That this country would become a better place were to be become Prime Minister is more arguable. However, I believe that it would; and so, were there to be a general election this 10th June, I should almost certainly vote Conservative. But the next general election is at least several months away. Next week, we shall be sending representatives not to sit in our Parliament but in the European Parliament. And so I shall, next week, vote for the United Kingdom Independence Party.
My reason is that, while I admire him, I do not trust Mr Howard to do in office all that is needed. It is possible to see in the past six months the beginning of a great reaction that will so far as possible undo great evils. It is also possible to see those months as a return to the politics of the Quisling Right.
I have written at length elsewhere about the Quisling Right. Here, I will simply define the term as the tendency of Conservative politicians to imply more than they promise, and to seem to promise less than really is promised - and, once elected to office, to do far less than was promised. Is this now happening? If we look behind the image that Mr Howard projects, is there the same lack of substance? Perhaps there is.
Some years ago, I wrote that, to be successful, a party needs a mission. This legitimises the often ruthless methods used to keep the party together. It allows otherwise fatal differences of personality and emphasis to be reconciled. It means that a clear distinction can be drawn between matters that can and matters that cannot be compromised. It gives activists a reason to go out knocking on doors and more passive supporters to continue voting during times of disappointment. The Labour Mission of the 1940s was to build Jerusalem in England's green and pleasant land. The Conservative mission of the 1980s was to smash the unions and generally reform economic management. The Conservative mission now must be to withdraw the country from the European Union, and perhaps to begin the work of reforming dying and replacing dead institutions. This is not a mission the Conservatives have themselves defined. It has been given them by events. If they take it up, they will win as they did after 1974. If they take it up only to drop it again after a successful election, they will be destroyed.
Are the Conservatives intelligent to understand the mission that events have shaped for them? I hope that they are, and Christina Speight believes that they are. Her repeated line is that the Conservatives do not need to alienate support by promising to leave the European Union. It is enough for them to reject the European Constitution. Hardly anyone would see this rejection as unreasonable; and if it is attended by our somehow leaving the European Union, there would be limited grounds for objecting. But there is much to separate hope and belief. Christina may be right - or she may be projecting her own clear apprehension of what needs to be done onto men who would sell their own mothers into whoredom just to sit again in those shiny black cars surrounded by the red boxes of office.
I have spent too much of my life looking at Conservative politicians to think well either of their morality or their intelligence. I hope that this time it is different. But I look at the public blandness of their faces and hear their convoluted answers to common questions, and I can easily imagine their private complacency. At last, they have acquired a leader as nearly first rate as can be imagined in our current politics, and bleeding to death in front of them - and from self-inflicted wounds - is a Prime Minister who could once depress all their hopes with a curl of his lip. I can almost see them rubbing their hands and waiting for the votes to roll in.
That is why the European elections next week are so important. We shall not be electing a government, nor sending representatives to a body that is of any real significance. We shall instead be taking part in an extended opinion poll. We need Labour to lose, but we also need the Conservatives not to win. The ideal result must be for Labour to be put on firm notice of dismissal, but for the Conservatives to remain on probation. No doubt must be left in their minds that they must try harder.
That is the value of UKIP. It contains many patriots. I am on terms of personal friendship with several of its candidates. But this is not a party that I could ever wish to see with a solid presence in the House of Commons. Its unity is too fragile, many of its leading personnel so privately compromised. It is too infiltrated and too controlled by the security services. It must not be seen as a party of government. But it is a way of making clear to the political establishment of this country that withdrawal from the European Union is not the obsession of a minority. The function of small parties in our system is to force the larger parties to shift position. The Commonwealth Party went nowhere after 1943 - few today even know about it. But its bye-election successes brought a general leftward shift in British politics. That is what we must hope of a UKIP success next week.
In a speech made earlier today in Southampton, Mr Howard attacked UKIP with his usual bluntness. I would not read too much into this speech. He is competing for votes, and he cannot be sure that the UKIP message really is popular. But a large UKIP vote next week will reveal the true nature of his leadership. His response might be to start speculating on the circumstances in which he would take us out of the European Union - or he might stand by in silent relief as Downing Street sends in the security services to complete the disruption begun after the 1999 election. Clear answers are seldom to be found in British politics. Much against his will, Mr Howard - and the Conservative Party as a whole - may be about to give one.
Howard's speech in Southampton is finally up on the web. Quite hard hitting, although if you've paid any attention to the campaign there are few overt surprises.
There are the attacks on UKIP, now seen as a significant opponent:
At one extreme there are the candidates from the UK Independence Party. They represent a party that wants to pull out of the European Union altogether. They have frequently failed to vote in the European Parliament on issues that are vital to Britain.
..........
But the fringes at both ends of the European debate are united in one thing. Both give the British people the defeatist message that we cannot have a flexible Europe. They argue that we have to put up with what we are given or leave altogether. Both sides peddle this myth for their own political ends. And they are both wrong.
Some say "that sort of Europe is not on offer". I reject that defeatism. It is on offer from the Conservative Party. And it makes sense - not only for countries like Britain who do not want to transfer any more power to the EU. But also for those countries who want to integrate more closely but feel held back by other member states.
...............
And let me make this clear. Only the Conservative Party can deliver this Europe. Not the Labour Party. Not the Lib-Dems. No other party.
There is the affirmation (or admissions) of the Conservative's pro-EU past:
We have always supported Britain's membership of the European Union. But we have also always been prepared to stand up for Britain's interests in Europe.
And there is the future - probably unattainable - view of a flexible Europe which the Tories want to remain a part of - just like most voters do:
I want to build a Europe of nation states. I do not want to build a nation called Europe.
......
Saying ‘no' doesn't mean we must leave the EU – just as we can say ‘no' to the Euro without leaving the EU.
......
We want to create a more flexible Europe. Individual countries should be free to integrate more closely if they want to, so long as they do not force other countries to follow them. And, in the light of experience, we should look at taking back powers from Europe that would be better exercised at a national level here in Britain – and in other countries too.
......
Britain's interests are best served by staying in Europe - but by using our influence to make the EU confront its failings and become more tolerant. That is what the mainstream majority in Britain want - and that is what a Conservative Government will give them.
.............
So what was missing? In the whole speech there's not one mention of Britain remaining in Europe for ever under any circumstances. There's no mention of the idea that a Conservative government would "never" contemplate withdrawal. Howard, it seems, has untied his hands.
The ball is now in UKIP's court. This election gives them the golden opportunity to ask the Conservatives if they still would "never" leave the European Union, under any circumstances. An evasion of the question would be one of the most significant steps to withdrawal that Britain has ever made.
By Philip Chaston (anarchfree@hotmail.com) |
Link
|
The Top
|
Less Irrelevant than you think
Thomas Fuller in the International Herald Tribune writes an informative article on the growing power of the European Parliament. This power has been clouded by the low turnout in elections across Europe; this will be seen again in the forthcoming elections on June 10th, including the new Member States of East-Central Europe.
The European Parliament's main powers set laws on the single market. Yet, if one analyzes their role in this area, the centralised power of European institutions is clarified:
The paradox for the European Union, analysts say, is that in recent years the European Parliament has become increasingly powerful, in some cases surpassing the lawmaking powers of national Parliaments.
Experts estimate that the majority of laws passed in Parliaments in Paris, Berlin or other capitals in the EU originate in Brussels, suggesting that Europe is more centralized than most voters think.
Yet, according to Fuller, the Parliament is only one of eighteen ways in which the European institutions can pass laws. In the last five year term, as one of the European methods of legislating (leaving out the Commission), it has managed to pass 400 laws.
Whilst the national electorates will continue to vote on the performance of their national governments, these MEPs, elected on a minority of a minority, will continue reinforce the work of the Commission and structure our lives in ways that favour harmonisation across the Continent.
His partisans would say that the answer to this question is simple. He wants to be the next Conservative Prime Minister.
On the other hand there are less charitable souls who will look at his age, his ability to give young children nightmares with that smile and the Jeremy Paxman interview and think that he's something other than Prime Ministerial material. Unlike IDS he will not gamble everything on winning, but will concentrate on consolidating a solid Tory opposition. Then another, younger and more human character - Liam Fox, say - can take over.
Well the chance to prove us less charitable souls wrong has appeared. Tomorrow (or today for those of you who read blogs at sensible times) Mr Howard will give a speech against the threat de jour, UKIP, and all the indications are that it will be a scorcher.
UKIP friendly types such as Christopher Booker are worrying that it will be ad hominem, pointing to the fact that there are more divisions and oddballs in UKIP than the average Trotskyite cult. I say fair enough, the job of a party leader is to rubbish other parties, and to use the material at hand.
However the Prime Ministerial mettle will be proved in the use he makes of another piece of ammunition, withdrawal from the European Union. UKIP's signature issue could be a boon for an opposition party leader protecting his flank but a pitfall for any realistic future Prime Minister. Of course withdrawal will be attacked, but it is how it is attacked that will be the issue.
Is withdrawal hasty or unthinkable? That is will Howard rule out withdrawal forever? This may seem simple. After all the Tory policy is to remain in the European Union and this could be a cheap way of pleasing the Tory wets and the dwindling band of corporate donors who are still keen on all things European.
For an opposition leader this is cheap, for a Eurosceptic Prime Minister it will prove very expensive. If withdrawal is not an option then Euroscepticism is just cheap talk and obstructive actions. Any Tory foreign minister will just be Jack Straw with a better suit. Expulsion is Europe’s nuclear option, withdrawal could be our silver bullet. Any Tory policy on Europe will have to at least flirt with withdrawal, and the British public must be taught not to fear life outside Europe.
If Howard rules withdrawal out, it’s time to start speculating on the next Tory leader – one who actually wants to be PM.
By Philip Chaston (anarchfree@hotmail.com) |
Link
|
The Top
|
So Unbelievable
The Sunday Telegraph, reported yesterday, that senior military staff were unhappy at the decision of the Blair administration to postpone the reinforcement of troops in Iraq due to political considerations.
The Sunday Telegraph said the decision to "postpone" the announcement had infuriated British defence chiefs.
The paper quoted one unnamed senior officer as saying: "Military strategy has become subservient to political expediency. We want to get on with the task (of reinforcement), but we're being held back for political reasons -- namely (next week's) elections."
Blair denied this in a released statement but, in a testimony to his wolfcries: the assurance that the deployment of troops will not be subject to political expediency is not taken at face value.
When the distinction between intelligence and political spin was merged in the run-up to the war, this question was voiced in the minds of cynics: is it not possible that Blair would place the volunteers of the British Army at greater risk in order to improve his political image in the campaign for the elections on June 10th?
By Philip Chaston (anarchfree@hotmail.com) |
Link
|
The Top
|
Who will rid us of these troublesome judges?
Another example of the grotesque parody that functions as British law arrived on the internet. The parody managed to combine two recurrent themes that shape our institutional decay: legal judgements that demonstrate a contempt for the concerns of the public as opposed to concern for the abstract rights of the accused (but never any consideration for their victims); and the incompetence of the New Labour civil service that could not be arsed to follow procedures and place the Real IRA on the list of proscribed terrorist organisations.
The bollock juggler civil servants who argued that Real, Continuity, Provisional or Official are all the IRA found that their laziness and penchant for shortcuts led to a shock judicial decision: the Real IRA is not an illegal organisation. That cut short their testicle play for today.
Even if they didn't belong to an illegal organisation, the accuseds were still remanded on charges of murder. Even the judges couldn't get them off that hook (unlike Hamza who will probably get off on the grounds he shouldn't be fried).
By Philip Chaston (anarchfree@hotmail.com) |
Link
|
The Top
|
Straw Man
In order to rubbish the claims of the Tories about passing foreign policy to the EU, Jack Straw resorted to satire in front of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, lampooning the ambassadors froom smaller countries.
In an attempt to reassure Eurosceptics, who fear that the new EU constitution will create a rival diplomatic service, the foreign secretary took a swipe at the officials who run the EU's 128 overseas offices.
"You find all sorts of odd bods running these sorts of odd offices," Mr Straw told the Commons foreign affairs select committee. "There are a lot of these people abroad and it is not entirely clear what they are doing."
To laughter from MPs on the committee, the foreign secretary lampooned the airs and graces assumed by some of the EU "diplomats".
He said: "All sorts of people are referred to as ambassadors. I meet them every day. What's astonishing is the less important the country, the more people like this they seem to have. I call everybody Excellency, which doesn't cause any problem."
Straw may have obtained a laugh but it is doubtful that he defused the rightful fears of those who understand the universal sovereignty that the European Constitution imparts. To reassure everyone of his own irrelevance and final divorce from conservatism, the nativist Patten wrote to Straw, criticising his comments as ridiculous and inappropriate.
By Philip Chaston (anarchfree@hotmail.com) |
Link
|
The Top
|
Stealth Tax
It is clear that after the parliamentary outcry over the announcement of large-scale increases in troops, the government is wary of providing further ammunition to its backbench critics.
Therefore, small-scale deployments like today's increase in British forces by 370 soldiers will probably become a regular occurrence, as a response to continuous threat assessments.
Dr Helen Szamuely that stalwart of the anti-European movement (who I think is George Szamely's sister) is blogging now at http:\\eureferendum.blogspot.com . Helen has written what is probably the definitive tract on how the Eurosceptic movement is organised, something that anyone who wants to devote any serious time to the Eurosceptic cause should read. She was also a parliamentary candidate for the Anti-Federalist League in 1992, the prototype for UKIP, and managed to garner 41 votes.
Anyone so sensible who was involved so early in the then seriously unfashionable beyond-Bruges Eurosceptic fringe deserves respect.
I've been following this for almost a week and refrained posting until now, as I did not want to post on something sensational like this until the story proved had legs.
Well, here's the beef. the American invasion of Iraq has started a chain of events that sooner or later will lead to a Shia theocracy. Fact. Anerica's former blue eyed Iraqi boy Ahmed Chalabi and his Iraq National Congress fed the Americans a load of utter rubbish that scared America into going to war. Fact. These two facts are connected. Still a theory.
You see Chalabi (a Shia, Fact, and a convicted fraudster, also Fact) is suspected of passing intelligence to the Iranians, Fact (Iran is a Shia theocracy, Fact). The supposition is that Chalabi's suspected co-operation with the Iranians extended back in time before the invasion as well as after it.
But how stupid is that theory? All Chalabi was doing was scaring the American regime with false information about the Iraqi threat leading to an invasion. What possible attraction could an invasion that would lead to a next-door theocracy have for Iran?
More on this from Steve Sailer and these barely selected sources:
She wrote: “I really believe that we would be better going it alone rather than cede our powers to those faceless, overpaid Brussels bureaucrats who care nothing for the individuality of sovereign states.
“I’m proud of being English and those who say we are such a tiny country that we can’t survive outside the EU are wrong.”
The United Kingdom Independence Party (whose founders included Alan Sked, Paul Coulam and Helen Szamuely) has supposedly emjoyed a late surge in the polls. According to Michael white in the Grauniad, this has two foundations:
In the drive by all smaller parties to eat into the support of the big three, UKIP - with £2m to spend on the campaign - is probably the best funded. It has a simple message too: Britain should leave the EU.
The YouGov Poll on which the figures are based, was taken amongst those 'likely to vote', providing a firmer indication of voting intentions.
The poll gave the opposition Conservatives 31 points, Tony Blair's governing Labour Party 23 points, the UKIP 18 points and the Lib Dems 15 points. The results were the highest ever for the UKIP and suggest a hardening of anti-EU opinion.
However, in the normal polling, UKIP trailed the Liberal Democrats 15% to 18%. This interesting result has been described as a "hardening of anti-EU opinion" although this is not yet borne out in other polling. The answer is that we do not know why there is a surge in UKIP's support: whether it is a genuine growth in the number of floating voters who support them, or a hard core gaining greater influence due to low voter turnouts.
If UKIP does gain more votes and more seats than the Liberal Democrats on June 10th, this will have a profound effect on the strategies chosen by political leaders. Many will interpret such a defeat as a punishment for adopting an uncritical pro-European line alongside a critical stance to the Iraq war. That is, pro-Europeanism is viewed more unfavourably by the electorate than any advantages provided by their anti-war position.
If the UKIP vote surges, like that other wave of electoral protest, the arrival of the Greens in the European elections of 1988, then we will probably see the mainstream parties tack more towards a Eurosceptic or Eurorealist position on Europe. This will prove divisive for Labour and the Liberal Democrats, who hold cohorts of vocal and disgruntled Europhiles in their ranks.
By Philip Chaston (anarchfree@hotmail.com) |
Link
|
The Top
|
24-1: The Odds on being convinced Blair is a Eurosceptic
The latest meeting on the European Constitution will take place tomorrow. The unresolved issues: the system of voting in the Council of Ministers (including the use of qualified majority voting) and the number of Commissioners per Member State remain issues in search of a consensus.
The European Commission has also retreated in the face of specific threats to gain control over the oil and gas deposits of Member States. Whilst this posed a visible extension of control from Brussels to a strategic interest of the United Kingdom, their climb-down may not be the triumph for the SNP trumpeted by Alex Salmond. Visibly minor concessions to help New Labour in the run up to the European elections may be provided in return for dilution of the "red lines" after June 10th. If this is the case, a "triumph" for the fishermen may be on the cards in the next two weeks.
New Labour will need all the 'triumphs' that they can get in Scotland. An interview with the head of Scottish Labour's MEP list, David Martin, provides anecdotal evidence that events in Iraq are a primary concern with voters and that they have undermined support amongst female voters. Since Blair gained support from women voters in 1997, overturning this traditional Tory advantage, such a psephological turn must be viewed as extremely worrying, especially if it were to have an impact in the General Election.
With this uncertain and hostile landscape at home, it is telling that tomorrow's meetings will not concern itself with the battles taht we are told Labour is fighting on our behalf. The foreign ministers meet tomorrow to thrash out a deal on voting, where a compromise has been reached: raising the population threshold for agreement so that Spain and Poland can rest assured that the troika of Britain, France and Germany could not form a 'blocking minority'. Tomorrow, Britain will just be one of the 'Big Three', although our govt wants us to see them at the heart of Europe defending Britain's interests, 24 to 1.
