Britannia Radio

Read and digest the implications of this.

Don’t for a moment think that Brown has been hijacked or coerced by 
the EU - he hasn’t.  This sell out of the one unique asset we 
possessed - The City - was done at his instance and to further his 
aims.  The City was always a semi-autonomous power-base, something he 
could never tolerate.

Whether through malice or sheer incompetence he destroyed its 
preeminence by allowing uncontrolled credit expansion and despite 
warnings built up the pressure which has engulfed us all.  He ignored 
all the warnings of an econmomic meltdown and was surprised by being 
‘outflanked’ by a financial banking collapse instead.

Now he sits at the centre of the EU web which is planning a total 
control of all financial levers in a one-size-fits-all EU-wide mesh.   
He is in his element because in Brussels he is answerable to nobody!

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx cs
===========================
EUREFERENDUM BLOG  17.10.08
An object of contempt

When in October 1962, Hugh Gaitskell electrified the Labour Party 
conference with his 105 minute speech, wholly dedicated to the Common 
Market, he delivered a singular and now oft-quoted passage that has 
proved to be wholly accurate. "We must be clear about this," he said:

… it does mean, if this is the idea, the end of Britain as an 
independent European state … it means the end of a thousand years of 
history. You may say, "let it end". But my goodness, it is a decision 
that needs a little care and thought.

It is worth noting in passing that Gaitskell had opened his speech by 
observing that the level of debate in the media over this "crucial, 
complex and difficult issue" had not been high. In some things, it 
seems, nothing changes.

Gaitskell went on to say that if Britain was to join the EEC, she 
would be "no more than a state … in the United States of Europe, such 
as Texas and California". Britain would become no more than "a 
province of Europe".

If anything, this "province of Europe" now has less power than either 
Texas or California – although the transfer of powers to Brussels is 
patchy. We have kept some, and lost others. But, in terms of 
engineering our financial salvation, we have little more power than a 
County Council.

That much Gaitskell predicted, more or less, but what he cannot have 
bargained for was that, when the moment arrived when it was displayed 
to all the world that Britain had brought upon itself the status of a 
"province", no one would recognise it for what it was - or care.

Surely, it is that, and only that which we can take from the 
extraordinary apathy over the Brown's bank bail-out? The fact that 
committing billions of expenditure to this mad scheme has not 
required the approval of Parliament – the bail-out announced and 
implemented without even a debate, much less a vote – while the 
approval of our masters in Brussels was required, seems to have 
passed virtually without comment.

Speaking with a number of MPs yesterday, however, it is evident that 
some do care. In fact, a small number feel passionately about this 
issue, one describing it as "outrageous" that there had not been a 
debate. But there is another dynamic at play – especially in the 
Labour ranks, one which also infects the ranks of the opposition.

Many MPs, it seems, are so completely out of their depth in this 
crisis – and we know exactly how that feels – that they are quite 
happy to "leave it to Gordon". He and only he is able to give the 
impression (for what little time he has left before the economy goes 
completely belly-up) that he is actually in control.

That Gordon is working so closely with the "colleagues" on this is a 
matter of supreme indifference to these MPs. They are just thankful 
that someone else – anyone else – is taking the responsibility for 
sorting out the mess so that they can get back to discussing bicycle 
sheds.

That this moral cowardice has also infected the ranks of the 
opposition is evidenced by this extraordinary post on Tory Diary. 
This confirms that the Conservative front bench has decided to opt 
out of the "bank rescue" debate. Instead, they have decided to give 
Brown his head and then move in behind him, later to argue about the 
"real economy", gaining what advantage they can there.

That, in itself, explains both the "bipartisan support" and lack of 
any expression of outrage from the opposition front benches at the 
quite unprecedented marginalisation of Parliament.

But, if this tactical retreat by the Conservative opposition has 
brought it any advantage – at that remains to be seen – it has been 
purchased at a terrible price, paid in Brussels and in Parliament 
itself.

In Brussels, scarcely concealed, the mood is of exuberance – triumph 
even. Financial services integration has been the Holy Grail of the 
"colleagues", the glittering prize of control of the financial 
centres of the European capitals (bar one – Zurich) having been their 
dream for decades.

Slowly, insidiously, they have been tightening their grip against the 
stolid resistance of the member states, which have been mounting a 
rear-guard action against the encroachment.

That, in part, is why financial regulation is such a mess – a mish-
mash of member state "legacy" laws, overlaid by an incoherent veneer 
of EU law, introduced with no logic other than that which has been 
possible to impose in the face of sustained opposition.

For sure, in the very early days of this current crisis, the 
"colleagues" were in some disarray. But, in retrospect (and even at 
the time) the Ecofin meeting last week was the watershed, the turning 
point.

Since then, as events have unfolded, this has become the ultimate 
"beneficial crisis". The logjams of past resistance have been swept 
away and the EU is preparing to forge ahead with a torrent of new 
financial services legislation, the member states now willingly co-
operating in the transfer of power.

There is a new confidence in Brussels as Jean-Claude Juncker, 
Luxembourg premier and Eurogroup chair, announces the "colleagues'" 
plan to "civilise" capitalism. "Let everyone remember after this 
crisis, who solved it. Politicians did, not bankers," says Juncker.

Those who have been predicting the downfall of the European Union – 
not least this blogger – would do well to remember the words of the 
19th Century German philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche: "What does not 
kill us makes us stronger."

If, by the end of this crisis – if it ever ends – the EU is not a 
smouldering wreck, it will emerge stronger, more powerful, more 
arrogant than before – and it will destroy the City of London and 
what remains of our prosperity with it. It will regulate it to death.

On the home front, in Parliament, the butcher's bill is on the table. 
Already on the wane, MPs have lost what little authority they had 
remaining.

Faced with a confident, assertive and powerful House, what prime 
minister at the height of an unprecedented crisis would have dared 
leave Prime Minister's Questions to the cleaning lady, while he 
rushed off to Brussels to cavort so openly with the "colleagues"? The 
House, last Wednesday, was treated with contempt.

Problematically, the virus of contempt is spreading. Before PMQs was 
Northern Ireland Questions, the secretary of state Sean Woodward - 
and renegade Tory MP - heavily infected. The situation in Ulster is 
deteriorating rapidly: the devolution agreement is breaking down, the 
devolved government has not met for months and the established 
political parties are falling apart, leaving a leadership vacuum.

Into that vacuum, there is creeping a dangerous band of dissidents, 
worming their way into the body politic and onto the streets. It is 
only a matter of time, many fear, before blood is once again shed.

At the centre of the intractable dispute between the parties is the 
final stage of the settlement, the devolution of justice and policing 
– the turnkey which will allow Stormont to become a fully-fledged 
government. Progress is all but stalled.

Into the fray last Wednesday, therefore, leapt Owen Paterson, shadow 
secretary of state for Northern Ireland. He asked Woodward for an 
assurance that the government would not intervene, as is rumoured it 
intends, and re-assert direct rule for the purpose of imposing a 
settlement over the heads of local communities – in breach of the St. 
Andrews agreement.

It was a valid question and deserved – no, needed – an honest answer. 
Lives are at stake. Yet Woodward evaded the question, delivering a 
torrent of extruded verbal material, leaving this vital issue hanging.

In this and a hundred other ways, Parliament is being treated with 
contempt. Having surrendered its powers – won at the cost of blood by 
our ancestors - in part to Brussels and, to a great extent, to the 
Executive – it has been fatally weakened. And, in being treated with 
contempt, it is also an object of contempt.

We will be the losers – we are the losers. In no manner, shape or 
form are we any longer a parliamentary democracy. The blood that 
flows as a result will not be confined to the streets of Ulster, any 
more than it could be before.
------------------------------------
Posted by Richard North
=====================