Europe's choice - BREXIT

The leaders of the members of the European Union have made their choice as to who should be the next President of the European Commission.  They have chosen the very heavily pro-federalist Jean-Claude Juncker.  This EU insider is said to have a strong affinity for alcohol.  Like the rest of the politicians at the top of the EU, he is certainly drunk on power.  Other than being 'chosen' by the heads of government, of the member states, this functionary will wield great power over the people of Europe, who have had no say in his election.  The only vote on Mr Juncker was one that was forced upon the leaders by David Cameron, the UK Prime Minister. 

Cameron strongly opposed the elevation of Juncker.  Cameron knows that the re-negotiation of Britain's membership of the EU will be so much harder, with Juncker at the table.  The majority of British people want a smaller EU footprint and greater power resting in the national parliament rather than in Brussels.  Indeed, I would go further and say that people from many other EU countries want a similar loosening of the EU chain around their necks.  Look at the results of the recently held (May 2014) elections to the European Parliament, where there was a very strong swing in favour of anti-EU parties.

So Cameron forced a vote.  This is an almost (perhaps solely) unprecedented step at the top EU table.  Decisions here are almost always made by consensus and no dissent is allowed to filter out.  It seems that while many of the EU leaders were tepid at best, on Juncker's candidacy, all except for Hungary and Britain, supported it in the end.  Italy was said to be opposed, right up until just days before the meeting but then they were thrown an economic  bone or two and so fell into line.  Probably the same happened with other countries.  That's how the EU works!

So, what now?

Firstly, a Private Member's Bill will be re-introduced into the UK parliamentary process.   This would enshrine in law, the right for a referendum on Britain's membership of the EU, being held before the end of 2017.  The previous one failed due to opposition by Labour and Liberal Democratic opposition in the House of Lords.  Labour and the Lib Dems also opposed the legislation in the elected House of Commons.  They did so by tabling masses of amendments and then trying to talk-out the bill.  They failed.  They also, incidentally, failed to vote for the amendments that were  proposed and over which they talked for so long.  Why?  Well they simply didn't have the courage to pin their colours to the EU mast.  They know that the people of Britain want a say.

This time, because of something called the Parliament Act, the Private Member's bill has a better chance of success, as traditionally, the House of Lords should not oppose it.  Wait and see though.  EU federalists are nothing if not incredibly wily!

Let's flip forward and envision a referendum on a British exit (BREXIT) from the EU. 

Already, we can see the arguments from the 'stay' parties.  These will be economic.  They will talk of the UK jobs and export markets that are at risk if Britain left the EU.  They may even remind everyone that this was the reason we joined the then, European Economic Community or Common Market, in the first place.  Britain joined in 1973 and in 1975 held a referendum o the subject. Yes, I know that is the wrong way around but don't expect logic or public engagement, from the political elite! 

So the economic arguments. 

Firstly, Britain is a net contributor to the EU.  This means that Britain puts into the EU cash bucket more than Britain gets out.  That is Britain puts in a huge payment and then some of this is returned to Britain via EU stipends but at the end of the day, Britain puts in, more than it gets out. 

So yes, certain businesses or community organisations or think tanks or whatever, that very much depend upon the largesse of Brussels might see their funding in jeopardy or they might see no change other than from where the payment comes!  Either way, there would be a net boost to the British economy.

Then there's jobs.  The EU represents a large export market for Britain and so jobs might be at risk.  Well let;s think about that.  Why wouldn't the EU negotiate a trade pact with an exiting Britain?  That would secure the export markets for Britain.  I presume that the EU-based purchasers of Britain's goods and services, do so on the basis of economic common sense rather than some kind of altruism - they buy British because the quality and price is acceptable!  Why would the EU sign a trade pact?  Well probably because the rest of the EU enjoys a trade surplus with Britain - they sell us more than we sell them! 

So for me, the economic arguments don't hold water. 

There is also talk about Britain losing its economic clout in the world and not being able to negotiate trade deals on its own.  Simply laughable!  Britain was a major trading nation before some of the EU members were even nations!  Yes, some of that trade was with Britain's colonies and Commonwealth nations but by no means all - statistics show around 27% with former colonies and Commonwealth, 12% with the USA, 43% with Western Europe (including the EC) and 18% with the rest of the  world-  .  In today's world, if you have what people want at the right quality and price, then trade will follow.  The ieconomy doesn't know national boundaries - look at all of the fuss about Amazon and their tax situation!

The EU as a force for peace?  Supporters of this argument point to the absence of continent-wide wars since 1945.  That's true but the EU has been remarkably ineffectual at stopping local conflicts and slaughter - remember Srebrinica?   Or more topically, what is happening in the Ukraine, where the EU has led the people up the path and given them the idea that they should look west to the EU and not east to Russia and then, when Russia flexed its military and gas supplying muscles, the EU abandoned Ukraine.  The Germans couldn't countenance that they couldn't cook Knödel or brew beer using anything other than Russian gas.  OK, so their idiotic closure of all of their nuclear power plants, post-Fukushima, was a monumental error but now they are stuck with Russian gas.  (Note too, that they also oppose Poland exploiting its shale reserves!)

Free movement of people?  Yes, this happens in the EU.  Problem is though, that this has meant a large influx of people into Britain and the indigenous population being squeezed out of employment.  That last comment is a little unfair, so let me explain.  We have seen significant numbers of East Europeans emigrate to Britain.  They have taken low-paying jobs that unemployed British people don't take.  The unemployed locals don't take these jobs because of welfare dependency and the fact that often times, the difference, between wages from employment and dole from the public purse, is not enough to 'justify' work!  If Britain took control of its borders and decided who could come in and who couldn't then Britain could start to tackle the cancer that is welfare dependency!  While the border is open to people who can dramatically raise their living standards by taking low-paying jobs in the UK, then the problem will persist.

Culture and History?  I hesitate to mention this but I don't think that Britons are Europeans.  Maybe it's because we have been at the democracy game for so much longer (see Daniel Hannan's excellent book - How we invented freedom and why it matters) that we view things differently.  Magna Carta (that's Latin for Great Charter, if you are reading this, Mr Cameron!) was signed in 1215 and this formalised previous English democratic 'institutions' and is part of a long tradition of British democracy.  As said earlier, many of the nations that are in the EU have come recently to the processes of democracy.  Perhaps that's why they accept the 'top-down' and 'centre knows best' that the EU offers - it's what they are used to and for the opposite reason, why Britain strains and rails against the undemocratic EU.  Britons have known what freedom means for so long, we almost take it for granted.  In our lifetime, many people now in the EU, had the Soviet jackboot on their necks.  The velvet-gloved EU hand around their neck which has replaced the boot, therefore appears somewhat more benign!

So, my conclusion is that the EU has gambled that there will be no referendum - since the British Labour party hasn't yet decided if it will offer one, that's a possibility.  If there is a referendum, the EU knows that all of the major parties, yes all, will push for Britain remaining a member of the EU.  Whatever is re-negotiated will be hailed as a significant British victory (even though nothing  will fundamentally change) and will be 'sold' to the British people as such.

I sincerely hope that the British people will be given the democratic opportunity to vote on membership and further, that they decide to leave the anti-democratic and wasteful EU.

What do you think?

 

What is integrity?

I think most people would say that integrity is about doing the right thing.  The best description I have heard is that 'integrity means doing the right thing, even when no one else is looking'.

Most people would, I suggest, also like to think that they and their fellow countrymen and most particularly their political leaders, act with integrity.  There is a sense that is common, on how we should behave.

However, and you knew there was one coming.  However, when people enter through the doors of the  political world, integrity leaves through the windows.

In short, why do politicians act as poorly as they do?  And, to be clear, when I say politicians I include all the government service bureaucrats and all of those that swim in the public-funded pool - be they directly funded organizations, NGOs or 'funded' scientists, etc..

Take Lois Lerner, as an example.  This is the woman that was, until recently, the head of America's Internal Revenue Service.  During her tenure, the IRS targeted right of centre groups.  These groups were entitled to certain tax-privileged status under the US Tax Code, so long as they met certain conditions.  Lerner's IRS repeatedly challenged and delayed the special tax status for these right of centre groups - such as various Tea Party organizations.  The purpose seems clear.  Use unelected government employees to frustrate, using illegal means, the rights of American citizens to exercise democratically passed tax laws, in the furtherance of opposing political aims.  One defence put forward by Lerner and her allies, is that they applied the rules 'even-handedly'.  They did the same due diligence on tax exempt status for left of centre groups.  As evidence they talk of 5 or 6 such groups being impeded in gaining their special status.  When you contrast that with the hundreds of 'right' groups that suffered delays and bully-boy tactics, you can see a very clear political agenda being followed.

Lois Lerner, an employee of the IRS - or, put another way, a (well) paid servant of the American people, was called before Congress.  Now, excuse me while I get a little 'utopian' on you but Congress, or in the UK, parliament, is where the representatives of the people go to transact business on behalf of their electorate.  Where we expect them to do things and hold people to account for things, that we, as individuals cannot.

Ms Lerner, then preceded to plead the 5th Amendment in front of Congress.  She refused to answer questions put to her, on the grounds that to do so honestly, might incriminate herself.   So, when asked, by representatives of the American people,  about how she did the job for which the American people lavishly compensate her, she refused to answer.  I guess I wouldn't make a good juror if Lois ever came to trial before me.  I figure that asking her how she carried out her job is an entirely legitimate question and, when she pleaded the 5th, I would draw the reasonable conclusion that she was  not carrying out those duties in a legal manner otherwise she wouldn't be worried about self-incrimination.

Anyway, it seems that Lerner will now face sanctions of some kind as the House of Representatives found her to be in contempt of Congress.  The vote was 231 in favour and 187 against.  Those in favour included 6 Democrat party representatives.  In terms of integrity though, I find it both appalling and and at the same time interesting/instructive that 187 politicians - all Democrat Party members - didn't see that Lerner's actions were, in fact, a contempt of Congress and, by extension, contempt for the American people.

To take it a bit further, acting with integrity, screams that Lerner is in contempt.  Abandoning integrity and toeing the party line, says that while she may be in contempt, we Democrats won't throw her to the Republican wolves nor will we do anything that aids the opposition.  (Or, for that matter, we Democrats will do nothing to restore the faith of the people in politicians either knowing or doing the 'right thing'!)

Some of those 187 will be out of a job, come November and will have more time to ponder their character deficiencies.  But think about it.  What causes such people to abandon morality on political grounds?

In case you think I am Lerner obsessed, I am not.  I am just using that to illustrate the point about the decline or lack of morality that is seen in modern day politics.  My focus is on the UK and US.  These are 'mature' democracies and as such, one would expect the basic values to be more ingrained.   There are numbers of European countries, for example, where democracy and the rule 'of the people, by the people' are new concepts - some being in place for less than 40 years.  In those countries, one might expect the flower of integrity to be fragile and initially feeble as the plant comes up against modern day real-politiks but in the established UK and US democracies - countries founded on documents like Magna Carta and the US Constitution and indeed, a Judeo-Christian religious ethic - one would really expect that the roots of integrity and basic honesty, would be deeper and stronger.

What makes Jay Carney, the White House Press spokesman, stand up in front of a largely compliant media, and day after day, dodge and prevaricate, when answering the few questions that he gets asked, about Benghazi?  It surely isn't to protect the national security interests of the USA - that might make it slightly more legitimate - but no, it is solely to protect the Obama administration (the one that was elected by we the people, I do hope you are keeping up! ) from questions to which the people, want answers.

I do hope my American readers don't think I am targeting them and suggesting that my home country is any better.

In the UK, we have seen and heard, over the years countless examples of politicians and public servants acting without integrity.  From accepting money to ask questions in parliament to other far more serious issues. 

To illustrate the latter.  Under the (envy of the world, so British leftists claim) National Health System
more than 1,300 patients died at a hospital group called Mid Staffs.  These hospital patients were found to have received very poor and in some cases downright inhumane treatment from the staff into whose care they had been placed.  An eventual Public Inquiry found significant numbers of short comings and examples of abuse.

And yet.  Sir David Nicholson, then head of the NHS area that included Mid Staffs, who later went on to become overall head of the NHS received no punishment.  Indeed he was able to retire, just this year on a full, highly remunerative, pension.  Andy Burnham, who was the Labour Party minister responsible for the NHS, has received no sanction.  Indeed he continues to represent that portfolio for the Labour Party.  

Okay neither received punishment.  I think that many, if not most, people would say that they should have experienced some small percentage of the suffering that  was inflicted on those 1,300 victims but, that aside, what kind of people are they, that they have no integrity or moral compass that screams at them saying 'this was wrong and even while I didn't personally commit any injury to people, this happened on my watch and I must set an example and do the decent thing' ?

Why is it that so many people, on entering politics or public service, abandon basic morality and act with little or no integrity?  We have scientists for heaven's sake, scientists who purposefully distort data and suppress information and then seek to silence and punish any critics, all in the furtherance of  an unproven theory.  (In fact a theory that is not just unproven but for which the contrary position is becoming ever more apparent, based on facts and evidence!)

We have American military people who are given orders to not go to the aid of  Americans that are being attacked (and ended-up being brutally tortured, raped and murdered) and these people do not have the integrity to do the right thing.  Incidentally, the current stories suggest that President Obama wasn't even in the White House Situation Room while events in Benghazi unfolded.  The word is that the President's special adviser, his fellow-traveler from Chicago, the unelected Valerie Jarrett, was calling the shots.  Maybe that's what Jay is covering-up?

I am not seeking to set off some kind of moral crusade here but is it so crazy to expect higher standards from our elected officials?  Suppose it is.  Is it crazy to expect that those that are paid by 'the people' are at least answerable to those self same 'people' and this is especially important when those 'sucking on the public teet' are unelected.

Please feel free to pass this on and particularly to your elected representatives - we really do need to bring about change and restore the notion that acting with integrity is the right thing to do.