I’m just back home after a few days in Dublin, where the excitement of the referendum vote on the Lisbon Treaty was at its height on Thursday, a foregone conclusion on Friday after the exit poles and something of a puzzle by Saturday. The lamp posts were covered in placards bearing cryptic and irrelevant sound bites of the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ factions, of which the intellectually challenging slogan in my title was one I saw which could have been yes and it could have been no. No-one seemed to have a clue what the Lisbon Treaty was about. Dinner with the intellectual cream of Dublin (OK, a bunch of professors from Trinity College) revealed no more understanding of the practical outcome of voting yes than the several taxi drivers I asked. But everyone felt excited and was going to vote, largely it seemed from fear of the impact of the recession on jobs, the need for more European investment and a vague feeing that Ireland was not strong enough to go it alone or even upset other European countries, none of which has anything to do with the Treaty. They were actually voting ‘yes’ to continuing as part of the European Union, which nobody was actually suggesting was in dispute. They even did it for a deeply unpopular Taoiseach, Cowen. To me the real fascination was the passion invested in a vote about which most knew nothing except the parties’ claims on the possible impact. Michael O’Leary of that wonderfully nasty airline Ryanair spent half a million euros supporting the yes vote, some think probably in exchange for a deal over Aer Lingus. I am in favour of the Treaty because of the better and more rapid voting system that it will bring and the stronger management capacity of the presidency. It’s the technical bits that people need to know about. Does the referendum tell us much about popular voting other than that they are readily manipulated by the best communicators, no matter what the issue?
But Dublin is a beautiful and vibrant city, and whisper it to Michael O’Leary, Aer Lingus was cheaper than Ryanair and the staff even smiled.
“No-one seemed to have a clue what the Lisbon Treaty was about. Dinner with the intellectual cream of Dublin (OK, a bunch of professors from Trinity College) revealed no more understanding of the practical outcome of voting yes than the several taxi drivers I asked.”
Oh, Baroness Murphy – you make it sound as though this is the fault of your ‘intellectual cream’ [ a fatuous statement if ever there was one] or that taxi drivers are too thick to ‘understand the issues’.
This is nowt to do with it, as I’m sure you know. The whole European project, conceived in secrecy, designed with obfuscation, guile and a cynical disregard for democracy, has from the outset been constructed to hoodwink the ‘electorate’ so that they don’t realise they are no longer the ‘electorate’ but soon to be subjects of the “Holy Roman Emperor Tony ‘Charlemagne’ Blair”.
You cannot have such a project being derailed by the ‘little people’ [and I include the professors in the same group as the taxi drivers, as they are probably far less different than you might like to suppose] finding out what the endgame is.
When people wake up next year and find that Barack Obama is not bothering to phone up David Cameron or Nicolas Sarkozy because he can ‘cut out the middle-man’ by phoning Tony Blair people will be ‘up in arms’ but it will be too damned late, and they will not be able to vote back the status quo ante.
The whole problem in Europe is neatly summarised in this wonderful ‘From Our Own Correspondent’ about ‘When in Slovakia, speak Slovak’.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/8282918.stm
A real, scary, terrifying eye-opener. Point it, when democracy throws up these rather alarming results people on the European main land think ‘Well, if that is democracy, well I think that lying warmonger Tony Blair is a bit better – better the devil you know..’
And as we have seen in this country, the BNP problem is being addressed not by fighting them tooth and nail in debate but in trying to find new ways to ‘ban them’ from debate, and from the chamber of the European Parliament.
We have a choice about voting out Cameron or Gordon Brown. We can never get rid of the EU President. We can probably live with that if it is Tony Blair. But what if it were Silvio ‘Suntan’ Berlusconi ? Or the guy in Slovakia who wants to ban people from speaking to each other in Hungarian ?
Baroness Murphy, you should be ashamed of yourself for supporting this anti-democratic nonsense. But hey, were are the plebeians, you are our ‘Lords and Masters’ so we should ‘shut up and eat cake’ because we don’t know what is good for us.
‘Vox populi, vox deo’ – and I guess the EU thinks ‘god is dead’ so our views, opinions and votes can safely be disregarded and they can safely go on legislating for corporate hegemony and control over our lives.
Was it ever thus…
I don’t pretend to endorse Bozza’s views – and I’m of a far more lefty-liberal persuasion than he. But he asks some searching questions here which demand some answers.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/borisjohnson/6260370/If-Europe-does-get-a-president-it-definitely-wont-be-Tony-Blair.html
I don’t agree with referenda. In fact a real government with some backbone would have rejected this Treaty (‘Constitution’) on its first reading and I was very sad to see the Lords didn’t use their powers to halt it. It’s time we pulled out of this barmy European project and gave the United Kingdom back some of her national sovereignty.
Bedd, the Irish vote was democratic – unless you think that people expressing their opinions is nothing of the sort.
Your comments poin to part of the reason why the Irish voted Yes the second time round.
Its very easy to make arguements against the EU, but instead your conspiracy-mongering does anti-EU types no end of harm.
Nor hasBaroness Murphy insulted anyone, and to pretend that she has is clutching at straws.
“The whole European project, conceived in secrecy, designed with obfuscation, guile and a cynical disregard for democracy” – No it hasn’t, and if it seems that way to you, then you haven’t been paying attention to international affairs, have you?
Intergrating countries for peace and prosperity is a bloody good thing.
Winston Churchhill once remarked that the best argument agaisnt Democracy is a five minuet talk with the average voter.
I’ve never seen the voting proccess as a particularly wise method of governance, as all you get in the end is government by popular appeal. Here in the States, Barrack Obama won the election mainly because he was able to run a better campaiugn. He looked better on camera, commanded masterfully the art of language whilst saying nothing, and was able to rally pur collective emotions with catchy sloagans of “Yes we can!” and “CHange you can beleiv ein” that ultimatley meant nothing.
Of course you may respect Obama, which sint the point, the point I make is that he won base don hype, not based on what he actually stood for, and the same is true of the Lesbon treaty in Ireland, whicbh you supported but ntoed how people didn’t really udnerstand when they voted Yes. This troubles me to no end, and is precicely why I am not in love with the modern notions of Democracy that we seem to all be taught now is th eonly fair and just way to run a Government. You end up with a Popularity contest with few people checkign the facts or knowign what they acutlaly are voting for.
Gelert, I wish this was a revival of the Holy Roman Empire. The Hapsburgs are a wise family and the structures of the HRE were set up in an efficient manner, and if consolodated they’d certainly funciton far better than the Repubican EU. The EU is buildign itself mro eon the socialist lines as invisioned by the SOviet Union, and base don the theories of Marx, or Reusseu, or other ENlightenment thinkers. Its basis is not one of Regality and reunificaiton of the Ancient ROman glory, but of the modenr spirit of Socialist Democracy.
The troubel is, all Socialist Democracy is corrupt, for the reasons I listed above. its nevcer abotu Honesrty and concern over the electorate, its abotu manipulation of the electorate in order to win an eleciton.
Oh and sory for the above, I didnt have time to spell chekc it and am DYslexic. Spell checker takes me a lot longer than it owudl a normal person.
“Here in the States, Barrack Obama won the election mainly because he was able to run a better campaiugn. ”
What a terrifying concept !! Let us get rid of that then and just allow a dictator/demagogue to emerge who cannot run a campaign and allow him or her untrammelled power and authority over the rest of us… Democracy may not be perfect, but compared to the alternative.
Obama did not win the election.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iW5kOB1pmg
Rather as in Ireland, this exchange has turned into a pro or anti Europe discussion when my purpose was to discuss voter knowledge and insight. Bedd Gelert, whether we like it or not…and some if it I like and a lot I don’t, (and we do vote for our members of E parliament though I don’t think I ever have), the issue of Europe and our membership is over, kaput, dead and buried. We are Europeans now whether we like it or not. The European project was designed to stop us going to war with each other, the rest is secondary. So surely if we are stuck with it we ought to try and give it good governance processes? We want it to be able to make decisions which stick but which can be properly scrutinised.
But my point really was that the democratic process was obscured in Ireland, as it usually is here and in the US too, as Zarove points out, by the boring old real issues being buried under a sea of ‘communications’ or adverts which bore no relation to the matters in hand. All the parties failed the electorate and I don’t doubt that our parties will too come the next election. All we will have is a beauty parade of charmers on both sides quick with their smiling sound bites and trivial promises. Why Gordon Brown would agree to a TV debate is completely beyond me; what will we learn apart from which of our potential leaders does the best Blarney?
I was joking about the Trinity College professors being the intellectual ‘cream’, and as you say the taxi drivers won’t be very different. There were a hundred or so taxi drivers blocking Dublin’s O’Connell Street on thursday and friday protesting that deregulation followed by recession had left them without sufficient work. The law of supply and demand is pretty harsh; they need a good understanding of the political choices for Europe but no-one seemed to be offering any tuition.
“We are Europeans now whether we like it or not. The European project was designed to stop us going to war with each other, the rest is secondary.”
Baroness Murphy, I agree – we were Europeans a long time before the EU was invented and will be Europeans a long time after it is dead and buried.
The idea that it will stop us going to war with each other is a complete red herring if a demagogue gets to have the power which will be invested in the EU Presidency.
Being ‘one nation’ did not stop the American Civil War. The EU didn’t stop Kosovo and it is doing precious little to solve problems in Afghanistan or the Middle East.
I agree that we need good governance, but THIS IS NOT IT. I’m sorry if I’ve upset you but what I really do despair of is what seems to be an attitude of ‘the working class simply cannot be trusted to decide’ and that they would be misled by Blarney.
And that they therefore need excluding from the decision making process so that an elite bourgeoisie can lord it over all of us. I’m afraid that I disagree with this, as giving everyone, however humble, a say is our best chance of avoiding another dictator taking over.
Many in Europe seem to thing the opposite and that they confuse democracy with cheap populism, nationalism and xenophobia. There are those undercurrents in any population but simply trying to ignore them rather than fight them is counter-productive and leads to problems when the ‘elite’ we thought were going to be so much better at governing than people with less education turn against us.
It has happened before in Europe and it could so easily happen again. Far, far too much power is concentrated in far too few people in Europe with no checks and balances.
My final question is this. If the EU is to stop war occurring again, and everything else is secondary, why do we get so much law being produced there which is nothing to do with our safety and security but all to do with legislation on exit signs, office chairs, working time and the 1001 things which we have no control over and for which no manifesto was over produced for us to review and approve ??
You may want to submit yourself to volumes of laws you had no say in – I’m afraid that I don’t, and I don’t believe I’m the only one in Britain who feels like that either.
It was not designed to stop us going to war with each other, it was designed as a piece of a Globalist agenda, a One World Dictatorship.
The US, Canada and Mexico are similarly merging, there are African and Asian Unions being set up, when the time is right, these will be merged into a One World dictatorship run by the same people who stop Hitler from thwarting their plans in the 4’s
Bedd, the original European Coal and Steel Community was founded to prevent war, but the EU has changed a bit since then.
If a dictator comes into power in our own country then we are in trouble too, you seem to claim this can only happen in the EU.
America had unresolved intergration issues and there are some other issues that the EU does not face, like that fact that it was an entirely new nation and that whole slavery thing.
Kosovo was a failure, but was that because the EU had little means to act – its military is individual nations, not one itself. and Afganistan is being handled through NATO, not the EU.
The EU and its predecessors are the product of a long and complicated series of international treaties. They are not something you can hand over to a referendum.
You claim that “Many in Europe … confuse democracy with cheap populism, nationalism and xenophobia.” And yet, what did we see in the first Irish referendum? populism, nationalism and xenophobia – like the claims of the treaty requiring abortion clinics and such.
And your last point – the EU is not to simply stop war, it is to make the nations of Europe stronger through intergration.
Much of what the EU does comes under the title of ‘important, but dull’ – most of it the same as would be conducted in any bilateral trade deal between the UK and another country – except this time it is between 27 states, and not just the current government has a say in what happens.
The EU is not at all perfect, it does have many horrible problems – but it is not evil.
It is not Evil, deary me, if you only knew one tenth of the ultimate Agenda.
Just a brief comeback Bedd G (you can tell we are still in recess or I wouldn’t be at my computer so swiftly). I really do NOT think that the population of people ought to be ignored in decision making. On the contrary they MUST decide on things. But people will only be good and wise judges if they have real knowledge and understanding about political issues. And I don’t mean a formal education but exposure to a jargon free range of information and why opposing sides oppose. Surely you will agree with me about that?
Baroness Murphy,
Indeed you are perfectly correct. Also please don’t think I’m being rude or obstreperous just for the sake of it – I respect your views and willingness to debate powerfully very much – indeed we could do with an awful lot more of it, especially on the issues you raise with respect to ‘assisted dying’ and other end of life issues.
You are right that the ‘adversarial’ style sometimes makes it difficult to gain a more circumspect view about Europe and I guess I am as guilty of this as anyone else. But I do think it is worrying that this is seen as an issue of being ‘right’ or ‘left’ when people with such opposing views as Tony Benn and Daniel Hannan share a concern that not enough people really understand that the law making process in Europe is not a democratic one.
I guess that if the Lords and the Commons did a ‘job swap’ at the next Opening of Parliament whereby you folks on the red benches MADE the laws and the folks on the green benches were reduced to scrutiny of them, one suspects that the ‘peasants would be revolting’ and marching in the streets.
But that is exactly what has been allowed to happen in respect of the balance of power between Westminster and Brussels with not a jot of protest because the frog has boiled slowly enough for people not to notice.
I have to say, Baroness Murphy, that I am a trifle disappointed that you didn’t ‘give as good you get’ a bit more and gave me a jolly good slapping for my inconsistency about my views on the EU [anti] and on the UN [pro].
This could be seen as rank hypocrisy on my part as I am quite against the Americans not considering the wider views of the world on climate change, but have up until now been quite willing to ‘go it alone’. But hey, that is democracy even if it is jolly inconvenient that people want to be free to drive big cars if they can afford to pay for it.
I suspect that balance between personal freedom of conscience, religion and behaviour measured against the wider good of society and the planet will be a defining one for this century.
However I suspect you are savvy enough not to throw my little butterfly onto the wheel.
p.s. You could always ‘go mufti’ for the State Opening. What’s the worst that could happen ?
Gelert, being able to run a Campaign is not the same thing as being able to actually run a nation, or execute any office of state, it simply means that one is able to appeal to the emotions of the voters and excite them so they will vote for you. Barrack Obama ran a great Campaign, but this doesn’t mean he is qualified to be President or particularly good at it, and over the last 9 months and so many days, Obama has proven that he is far, far from the Great man his Campaign advertised him as. Not that I’m disappointed or the least but surprised, since no politician is the great man their campaigns present them as. Obama’s actual policies weren’t even reflected in his Campaign, which mainly consisted of a lot of “Yes we can!” and “Hope and change” rhetoric that ultimately meant nothing at all, but made us feel good and like him. He also looked good on Camera, has a masterful speaking voice,and an excellent command of the ability to speak. He is a Great Communicator, but this doesn’t make him a great Administrator, as the office of the president is.
Also, given that he basically lied to the American people in his Campaign, again something most Politicians do, by claiming he would rule as a centrist and appoint a “Team of Rivals” only to go hard left and appoint only fellow leftest to his Cabinet and to the high ranking positions, and how his policies have become increasingly opposed Domestically, I think it is safe to say that his campaign and the reality of him as president are totally separate beasts.
Aristotle of course had that objection to Democracy, that it would lead to men who are skilled at Campaigning but not particularly good at actual governance.
On that note, I also have to have a bit of a laugh when you say this beats the alternative of Dictatorship. Given that quiet often Dictators emerge from popular uprisings or democratic elections, and seldom in monarchies ( Which is not to say never in Monarchies before the litany of names comes up, I am well aware of Henry the 8th) I have to wonder why you think democracy is the Alternative to Dictatorship?
Adolph Hitler was Democratically elected, but I’m pretty sure he was a Dictator. Mussolini may have Sieged Rome, but he also commanded the polls quiet well too. Lenin also won massive popular support, as did Stalin, and in todays Russia Mr. Putin is a winner at the polls himself.
Hugo CHavez is a Dictator in his own right, as was Zeleya in Honduras, now called the once and future dictator.
Dictators can be elected rather easily.
Worse, oftentimes Democracy itself is Dictatorial, and if the majority wills something it happens, even if this means a Minority has to suffer.
Democracy is not the Alternative to Dictatorship, and there are multiple forms of Government besides the two. Democracy isn’t even a safeguard against Dictatorship, and can act as a vehicle to facilitate it.
We shouldn’t assume that we are free because we are Democratic, else we run the risk of creating such a Democratic Dictatorship ourselves.
We are not in a democracy, our Parliament is a Charade, we have no say on any important issues, whether to go to war, the surrender of sovereignty, immigration, the loss of our fishing grounds. When have we ever had a say in a Major decision.
Zarove, you make a number of points and I’m not sure I’ll get through all of them.
Barack Obama – I think you are right that no one can live up to the ‘hype’ and that BHO whilst a good guy is in a real sense not that different to Tony Blair trying to turn around a super-tanker which change and centrist policies. I’m afraid I don’t accept your point that he is a ‘leftist’. Mind you, I suppose that Gordon Brown is the current benchmark. I agree that many of his speeches are about ‘Yes We Can’ style slogans, but he has oratorical skills and also sold a lot of copies of ‘The Audacity of Hope’ so his views are not exactly a secret either.
But only time will tell his ultimate goals, and whether his skills of governance match his skill on the platform persuading voters.
You make important points about the lessons from history of democracy and dictatorships. Indeed in the recent history of Africa there are examples where religious and tribal differences are worsened by majorities using the ‘democratic’ upper hand to crush their opponents.
But I’m afraid I don’t see the answer to the deficiencies of democracy being the removal of the ability to vote out politicians one doesn’t like. Otherwise how are those in power to be afraid of the people ? Tony Benn left the Lords and became an MP because he wanted to feel the heat from the fire of the views of the electorate.
Again, you make a good point about Chavez, but I’m afraid I don’t believe he is quite in the same league as Pinochet, no matter what the spin from the American media might have us believe.
“Democracy itself is Dictatorial”. Well, I guess that is a point of view. Certainly in Wales there is a lot of kerfuffle about the Welsh Assembly Government and the support or otherwise they give to native Welsh speakers.
Pre-devolution the argument was that they were not protected enough [dictated to by Westminster], now the argument is that their ‘protection’ is anti-democratic. I don’t have easy answers to these issues, and those relating to rights over religion. But the US of A often gets it about right relying as they do on the Constitution which emphasises personal rights, separation of church and state, and the checks and balances between the executive and government.
There is of course a debate about who calls in the shots in democratic government, the people or the corporations, and if the oil companies and healthcare organisations end up ruining the environment and people’s health I may end up wishing for a benign ‘Tony Blair’ autocrat and end up singing USSR style hymns to a centrally planned economy.
Geert, I hope you ralise the US of A was never actually intended to be a Democracy, and that the COnstitution is actually an Anti-Democratic Document. The American Founders, from Madison to Jefferson to Adams, universally rejected Democracy as a good form of Government, and created a Constittional Republic in which only one house is actually Democratically selected, that being the House of Representiives. The Senate, as per the 1789 COnstitution, actually had the senate, the upper house, appoitned by State Legeslatures, not direclty elected by the People, with Veto and revision power over each bill the House presented. This arrangement existed until the passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913, when the COnstitution was Amended to make the Senators elected, and since then, we have seen the Senate beocme rather domeneiring and corrupt.
Even the President of the United STates isnt direclty elected, though many want to remove the structures that rpevent direct election. The voters vote on electors in an electoral college. The electors represent the Camps, but arent stricltuyr equired to vote along the lines of the voters who selecte them.
It is the electoral college, not the peopel themselves, which select the President.
Incidentally, such things as he Seperation of Church and Sttae have in recent years been used to curtail freedom rather than secure it. Originally, as is outlined in the Federalise papers and other improtant legal works, the US Government wasnt relaly suppose to e seperate. In fact, the term “Seperation of Church and State” doesn’t exist in the actual constitution. They were suppose to be Neutral and repsect the rights of every Citesen to worhsip accordign tot he dictates of their own concience, and to allow each Religiosu group equel access to the Government for grievances. This has mutate dinto compleltey barrign thmem from engaging in politics or receivign federal funding, and gone up to the removal of (Judeo-Christain) religiosu symbols form public buildings and prohibitions form religious insturciton in schools, somethign that the Firts Amendment was never really designed for.
All base don pushy people who dont liek the idea that a monument to the Ten COmmandments may be in a courthouse even if they personally arent required to ebelvi ein them.
That, to me, is just abject nonsense.
That said, Obama is not a Centist. He is an outright Liberal. Look at his appoitnments. Cass Sunstein, Van Jones, James Holdren, none of them are right or centre. Look at his Cap and Trade bill, its a liberal idea, not a centrist one. His Health Care reform is massivley unpopular, and finds support only on the left.
In what way is Obama a centrist?
He clealry promtes Liberal ideas and is obviosuly deeply conencted to Socialist causes, and yet you tyhink he’s a good guy and a centrist. He’s not.
I don’t even think he’s that good a guy, with his endless need for self praise and rather platent media hounding, he coems off rather poorly.
He just recently had Doctors shwo up in Lab coats just so he can say Docors support his “Centrist” health care reform that most Doctors aculaly oppose. He had to have thm in Lab Coats for a Photo Op, you see. Thats just showbiz, not real leadership, and he’s also nbeen known to intimidate and bully his oposition.
I don’t find any of that good.
He’s basiclaly a deeply partisain liberal elitist who wants ot push through his own ideology onto a largley unwiling public that grows even mor eunwilling each day, and does so by means of intimidation and deciet.
Then again, as I said, he is a Politician.
Which brigns me to my main thrust. The UK until recently has largley reissted the Democracy craze, btu now we must reofmr the Lords to shwo they have Democratic Legitimacy. No one ass why Democrayc itself is Legitimate, and certainly I dont think it is automaticlaly Legitimat ein its own right, much less the only legitimate Governign form. I prefer an unelected Lords to provide balance to the Government, just as I woudl want to see the Crown retained, and not just for nostalgia or culture.
I personally dont think that “THe People” shoudl rule, an dnot just because I think it a sham and corporations hijack it, but because th masses are easily swayed and easly ecieved, moved by whims or passions.
I think we need a balance to this, and not endless democracy, which lead sonly to corruption.
If we are to reform anything, we shoudl reform the House of Commons, not the House of Lords. The Lords ought to really be the Upper house with real power, and the COmmons should be made to abolish the large party affiliations and make the peopel elected turly represent the locales they hail form, not the party they signed on to.
But to make sur the people arent barmy or moved out of fear or hatred or irrational momentary reactions, lets let the Lords retain their unelected status. Feelign the fire is not always a good thing, for it may caus you to sip into the madness that embraces the mob outside and give them what they want, even if in the end it snot best for nayone to do that. We need some level heads not effected by the heat.
Zarove, a hugely interesting post. It is so very disappointing to me that history is being downgraded in schools. Maybe the BBC should sign up for a telly series ? They don’t seem to make things like ‘Civilization’ any more.
“That said, Obama is not a Centist. He is an outright Liberal.”
Hmm.. This may reflect my British perspective where being a liberal IS near the centre. I guess it is rather like the ‘average temperature’ in Britain and the US being very different – likewise ‘the centre’ will be different in those two countries.
Don’t you have a blog of your own ? Maybe you should, pending your fast-tracking to the post of ‘History Czar of the BBC’ ?
Actually Bedd, I don’t think that ‘the centre’ on the left-right spectrum has anything to do with one’s tendency to either be liberal or socially conservative. I’d have thought the left-right continuum was more to do with one’s opinion on to what extent the economy should be state-managed, where the furthest left would be ‘libertarianism’ (a name often ascribed to Britain’s ‘new right’) and the furthest left ‘communism’.
So the real distinction is between socialists and capitalists.
Sorry that should be ‘furthest right’ is libertarianism.