Got in one!

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Got in one!

Charles Moore suggests in The Daily Telegraph that "Few people would fight for Parliament today," questioning whether anyone would "defend democracy in today's political climate."

He is reviewing a book about the English Civil War – Cavaliers and Roundheads, and all that – adding his "take", writing that:

Because voters are so angry – rightly – about "sleaze", they have almost forgotten that those they elect must have "privileges". That is to say, they must have rights against the power of what is still sometimes called the Crown, but which means, in reality, the might of government and the power of "Europe". Parliament has sacrificed these privileges, preferring material ones, and has therefore lost respect. If we had a civil war today, few would fight for it.

That is fair enough comment, and if you move over to The Times you will see a graphic illustration of what has happened to parliament's power.

Way down the list, this is a nasty little story about how a drinks manufacturer, Sovio Wines, is appealing to the High Court against a Food Standards Agency ban on its products. There is nothing wrong with the product – in fact it is extremely popular and has been welcomed by health campaigners as an excellent idea.

What the company has done is use a pioneering process in order to take high quality wines and to reduce their alcohol content to just eight percent without in any way altering the taste or texture of the wines. But the "mistake" it made was then to label its product wine, thereby falling foul of EU law which specifies a minimum of nine percent alcohol for a product to be thus labelled.

Enter the FSA which claims that, because a breach of EU law is involved, it has jurisdiction over its distribution, whence it moved in to ban its sale. In so doing, it has "paralysed" the company's business. Stocks worth tens of thousands of pounds, held at a bonded warehouse since the 2007 banning order, have been rendered undrinkable and therefore unmarketable because of the wine's short shelf-life.

The company's chairman Tony Dann thus notes that: "The Government is urging the drinks industry to provide a wider range of lower alcohol products, consumers want to drink them and yet the FSA is seemingly trying to kill a product that everyone wants".

The problem, of course, is that the government – in Whitehall – is no longer in charge, and neither is Parliament. This is a law made in Brussels, untouched by parliament because it is an EU Regulation, which contradicts British government policy. It is being enforced by an Agency – not a Quango – paid for by us, which is not answerable to Ministers or parliament. It is acting solely and exclusively in defence of EU law.

Now look at Melanie Phillips. She writes in respect of the financial crisis:

Ultimately, however, such re-arrangement of the political furniture is unlikely to make much difference. For the public are terminally disenchanted with the entire political scene. Totally bemused by the financial meltdown, they perceive that no politician appears to have a clue either.

MPs themselves hardly exude any more confidence in themselves. With their woeful attendance records, long holidays and shorter hours, and with ministers making announcements anywhere but in the Commons chamber, there is a palpable sense that power has moved elsewhere.

Almost certainly, an electoral tipping point was reached some time ago when people decided that it was "time for a change". If so, there's virtually nothing Labour can do to avert defeat. But far deeper and much more dangerous is that the entire political process is simply becoming irrelevant to people's lives.

By diverse and several means, parliament has rendered itself impotent, irrelevant to the government of this country, toothless, self-obsessed and venal. Would we fight for it? Of course not. We would be happier driving the tumbrels.

The only mistake Moore makes is in confusing parliament with democracy. We have not had democracy in this country for some time. The proof is in incidents like the one affecting Sovio Wines. We would fight for democracy, but not for the people who gave it away.

Unfortunate!

Not the happiest juxtaposition, given the tragedy over there. But then, if the newpaper insists on this purile, tabloid-like presentation, this sort of thing is inevitable.

COMMENT THREAD

Stitched up

You may have followed, albeit desultorily, the outcome of the Swiss referendum last Sunday. According to most sources, such asthis euroluvvy site, Swiss voters have backed giving Romanian and Bulgarians the right to work in their country by a "big majority", with nearly 60 percent in favour of the proposition. 

This is taken as Swiss support for EU enlargement – and the EU generally - and a vote against right wing "xenophobia" from the populist Swiss People's Party, the only party to support the "no" campaign.

However, as always, this is not quite what it seems. There was considerable popular opposition to the idea that Romanian and Bulgarian citizens should be the right to work and take social and unemployment benefits in Switzerland. Given the experiences of Italy and others, this was not entirely irrational.

But the point is that, despite the label on the tin, the Swiss were not actually allowed to vote directly on the issue. The political process was rigged to an extent, some Swiss are saying, that would do Robert Mugabe proud. The actual issue on the table was the renewal of the original treaty agreement with the EU, which included many things, but mainly free movement across the border and trade.

When the prospect of Romanian and Bulgarian entry came up, the Swiss had been promised by the federal government that they could have a separate referendum, in accordance which a long-term promise that every EU enlargement would be dealt with separately.

However, when the referendum arrangements came for approval to the parliament, it reversed the government's promise and bundled the treaty renewal with the Romanian and Bulgarian entry question. To have voted against this would have meant that, under a so-called "guillotine clause", all the other agreements with the EU would also have fallen.

In a move similar to the stunt pulled by the Irish government over the Nice treaty, this was, essentially, a coup by the whole political class against its own people. Despite what the headlines are saying, this was not an endorsement of EU enlargement policy in a free and fair referendum. 

The result is built on a foundation of lies, threats and misrepresentation. The contempt of the Swiss political class for their own voters has nearly reached EU standards.

COMMENT THREAD