re: "Was the EU Referendum Vote the Tory Party’s Bunker Hill?"

John C. Dyer, UK correspondent at WhirledView ("a look at politics and most everything else"), reported on a surprising development in Parliament.

Money quote(s):

"Soon after coming to office, the Coalition government instituted an experiment in direct democracy. Voters who want to see Parliament debate an issue may petition the government for such a debate, using an online petitioning procedure. If 100,000 voters sign, the Parliamentary “back bench business” committee considers whether to schedule a debate.

Hundreds of thousands of voters signed such a petition calling for the government to submit a referendum on the UK’s continued involvement in the European Union to the voters. Polls suggest that as much as two thirds of the voters favour such a referendum. The data is less clear whether or not such a referendum would result in a majority voting to withdraw." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Membership in the European Union is, to borrow the phraseology of one prominent politician, a "big fucking deal." And letting the British people have a voice in decisions about EU membership is something that successive UK prime ministers have promised, in the form of a referendum, but failed to deliver.

"The leaders of all 3 major parties invoked the well known “3 line whip” discipline rule. Under this discipline, party members must vote as directed by their leaders or face potential long term career consequences.

Not only did 81 Conservative MP’s defy the rule, including 2 junior Ministers, at least one, Adam Holloway, stepped down from his (albeit minor and unpaid) ministerial post. The final fallout for breaching discipline is not yet known.

The defiance was not confined to Conservatives. 111 MP’s voted in favour of the motion, including 19 Labour. But the imposition of the "three line Whip" by each of the 3 major parties delivered a crushing 483 vote defeat for the referendum on EU membership in the House of Commons.

Although defeated, the Conservative vote was particularly eye-catching. It was perhaps the most significant Conservative rebellion in this Parliament and the most significant Conservative rebellion on the European question since 41 Conservative MPs did so in 1993." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

&

"The issue of ceding British sovereignty to Europe may not be as hot a hot button in the UK among voters as MPs, but the believed impact of Europe on UK jobs is. In part, the rebellion reflects MPs responding to the economic angst of their constituents. The question of what level of involvement the UK should have in Europe has been credited with dividing past Conservative governments and contributing to the demise of John Major’s. This one issue has served to divide leaders from their party faithful over and over again. Once again as the Eurozone falters, British unemployment grows, and British chaffing under European rules increases, the “European Question” has taken center stage.

But speaker after speaker recognized that the vote would fail, no referendum would be held, and the leadership of not one of the three major parties had even found the timing “right” for such a referendum." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

&

"Some of the 81 rebellious MPs during floor debate in the House of Commons contended that they were not arguing the UK should withdraw from trade with the EU, but rather should confine its involvement to free trade treaties. It is the subordination of British law and policy to Brussels to which they object. But the current "sovereign debt crisis" in the EU is the "hook" leveraging the debate." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

The "European Project," so-called, is about economic and trade integration only insofar as it compels ever-more-closer political union within Europe. It's amazing, really, that Britain has been allowed to avoid membership in the "common currency," and completely un-surprising that it is now expected to help foot the bill for that rickety currencies failures.

"The reality of the UK’s position in the global economy is such it is doubtful that the UK can hold its economic ground (much less regain ground) without involvement in a successful Europe, and without even greater political integration it is doubtful Europe will be able to be successful. While there are a number of issues that make such integration a steep climb in any event, the UK is not in a position either to dictate the rules of the game or to pick up its marbles and go home."

Britain isn't about to become un-involved in Europe, certainly not in economic terms, so this is a bunch of hogwash. It's also something of an empty threat from Brussels. Britain, if needs be, can renew economic integration with its worldwide Commonwealth partners, petition to join NAFTA, or take any of a number of other alternative measures to replace unreliable Continental partners. The EU needs Britain, and its Pound Sterling, at least as much as Britain needs the EU.

10/24

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

re: "CLAIMS OF SPITTING ON CONGRESSMAN?"

Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit ("I’m interested in everything, but my chief interest is in the intersection between advanced technologies and individual liberty.") asks an uncomfortable question:

"(I)f it had to pass by a referendum among American voters, would spitting on Congressmen even be a crime?"

Forty years ago (some) American voters were spitting on soldiers returning from Vietnam.

So I'm very loath to recommend that precedent be followed, particularly when I can see it easily spreading further.