re: "The European Union on Mount Doom"

Amb. Charles Crawford at Blogoir (" A digital hybrid of blog and memoir presented on a daily basis, or not. ") examined British parliamentary maneuvers regarding a referendum.

Money quote(s):

"The discussion focused on global trends. A striking observation was made: “in the past ten years or so we have seen one of the greatest changes in human history–a billion people have joined the global economy".

This, it was argued, changed everything. Above all, it meant a colossal downward pressure on living standards in Western economies: when so many jobs and functions could now be outsourced to poorer parts of the world, why should wages in the UK and elsewhere in Europe and the USA continue to trend upwards? This in turn had startling implications for strategic Western pension models, set up on the basis that living standards would improve indefinitely."

&

"Once a billion people in a matter of a few dozen months join the global means of production of ideas as IT gadgets get cheaper and better (see the swarming cheap telephones videoing the ghastly end of Gaddafi), everything starts to change at an exponential rate. In particular, the very logic of the existence of institutions and practices set up under completely different conditions can be called abruptly into question, in a way which is for practical purposes unmanageable."

This is a big deal. Globalization always is.

"There is something to be said for the claim that as the Eurozone burst into flames all this talk of a British referendum is an unwelcome distraction. But that looks like a puny tactical point when far bigger issues are at stake.

There is a lot more to be said for giving intellectual leadership, embracing the proposition that the time has come to look long and hard at the way the European Union is now set up. As I have previously argued, the iron laws of physics show us the fatal weakness of the European Union: it bulks up mass and reduces velocity.

Almost everything about the European Union is now at odds with scary, dynamic world we face, and reflects ideas which are now unsustainable. The huge salaries and pensions. The impenetrable procedures and untransparent decisions. The constant overriding or outflanking of voters' opinions. Above all, the truly heroic impertinence of the European elite who, having blundered in creating the Eurozone and its ruinous results, now insist that they and they alone must be given more centralised power over voters and their money." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

What could possibly go wrong that wouldn't be greated with calls for greater political centralization?

"(T)he collective determination of the main British political parties to deny the British public a say on these momentous matters looks out of touch, if not oppressive.

The deeper logic of the government's position is simple, if a trifle cynical: since the European Union is doing a good job of deconstructing itself, albeit in an appallingly risky way, there is little to be gained by the UK kicking away its Zimmer frame. Sooner or later a radical renegotiation of European arrangements will fall into the British lap, with London in a strong negotiating position. Without British taxpayers' money European “solidarity" doesn't go far."

This smacks of Leninist doctrine: "The worse, the better."

"(A) referendum on the U.K.'s attitude to European structures would make sense once new EU Treaty changes have been agreed. In normal circumstances that might indeed make sense. It risks being overwhelmed by events, although it does have the great advantage of sending a signal to other European capitals that unless any new treaty represents a really important shift of power back to national capitals it has no chance of being accepted by British public opinion." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

He concluded:

"These parliamentary games do not match the severity of the situation. The time is coming to respond to public opinion and seize the intellectual high ground, by starting a hard debate on the best way to organise Europe in the tumultuous changing circumstances brought about by the IT revolution.

Sooner or later that debate has to happen. Surely it is better to have it in some sort of controlled way with the UK using its detachment from the Eurozone debacle to define and lead the debate, rather than as a result of pell-mell collapse?

Needless to say, as soon as the British Prime Minister makes a public call for profound EU treaty revision, the shriek from Brussels (and Paris) will replicate the horrible banshee wail of the Nazgul as Mount Doom started to tumble.

So be it. The EU’s current arrangements are dying. Time to change course."

10/24