The End of Government by Consent

From the desk of The Brussels Journal on Thu, 2008-01-24 10:22

A quote from Simon Jenkins in The Guardian, 24 January 2008

[E]veryone but a fool (or a minister) knows that the [Lisbon] treaty is the rejected 2005 [EU] constitution in all but name. Its architect, the former French president Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, says so. The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, who negotiated its passage, says so explicitly. […]

[A]ll three parties [in the British Parliament] promised voters at the 2005 general election that their view on the restructuring of the EU would be sought in a referendum. Both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown pledged there would there be no question of "bringing [the EU Constitution] back with a few amendments" and pretending it was different. There were no ifs, buts or equivocations. There were no references back to previous referendums or debating points about the Single European Act. There was just an old-fashioned, cast-iron, read-my-lips, democracy-is-sacred, thundering great pledge. […]

[W]happens next [now that Britain will be denied the promised referendum]? We all know the answer. People fed up with bureaucratic meddling in their lives will gradually withdraw consent from honest government. As under communism they will evade, fiddle and go apathetic. Faced with a torrent of Euro-directives – some possibly virtuous, on free trade, energy saving, public safety, terrorism, civil rights, building regulations and conservation – they will disregard them, as Mediterranean countries ignore or corrupt any public administration they do not like.

I do not want this sort of Britain. It will happen not because voters were cheated of a promised referendum. Most will just shrug and say: "Typical politicians." It will happen because no attempt was made to persuade them of the worth of a substantial transfer of their democracy off-shore, as would have happened in a referendum campaign. This neglect was not oversight. It was because the government thought its persuasion might not work (despite the polls suggesting it might). It was the arrogance of political cowardice.

Polish absurdities # 2

Submitted by marcfrans on Thu, 2008-01-31 17:18.

What Monarchist does not seem to 'get' is that there are all kinds of liars: democratic ones and nondemocratic ones.  And there is a difference!  About the former something CAN be done, about the latter nothing can be done (short of revolution and mass murder). 

Also, the notion that " a king doesn't care about gaining the support of the people" is exceedingly naive.  Certainly in contemporary times.  Kings, like most human beings, are much too vain for that.  They do seek the 'approval' of the people.  Moreover, empirical observation teaches that kings who do not gain that approval can suffer terrible fates, and their people too.  (Saddam was only the latest 'king' to be hanged.  Mugabe might be the next one, who knows? The last or most recent nondemocratic or absolutist 'king' in Europe was probably the last 'communist President' of Rumania.)

The important idea that Monarchist cannot grasp is that when 'lying democrats' go overboard, the lies can be exposed (in a democracy) and correction becomes possible.  When 'lying nondemocrats' go overboard, the possibility of exposure will be more limited and the correction is likely to be 'violent' and severe.  These are lessons rooted in empirical observation and common sense.  

@ Armor

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Thu, 2008-01-31 13:46.

(Would you prefer it if I placed all my future responses to this question on a loop?)

 

The answer to your question: Anything else?

 

Shucks! You tricked me,that's TWO questions.

Anything else?

Submitted by Armor on Thu, 2008-01-31 13:49.

Yes. I think you are being insolent.
Improve your ways, or I'll have to complain to Paul Belien.

Anything else?

Submitted by Armor on Thu, 2008-01-31 13:28.

Sure!
I think the EU is the way of the future.
It will lead us to eternal glory.
Britain is so passé !

bashing the EU

Submitted by Armor on Thu, 2008-01-31 13:08.

@ Atlanticist :

You provide a link to a review of a book by Pierre Manent. Unfortunately, Pierre Manent talks rubbish. He thinks he defends nationality and christianism against the EU. In reality, france is a machine dedicated to the eradication of my nationality. Unlike france, the EU has never tried to kill a European language. The immigration disaster has been inflicted on france by the french government, not by the EU. The french administration also happens to be strongly anti-christian, while it tries to help in the contruction of mosques everywhere. As for the accountability of the EU bureaucracy, I don't think that Manent, a teacher of "political philosophy" at the E.H.E.S.S (an state school at the hands of the extreme left) is in a position to lecture the EU. The french bureaucracy has never been accountable to the people.

Polish absurdities

Submitted by marcfrans on Wed, 2008-01-30 23:07.

Monarchist seems to think that A "does not keep their promises".  But A turns out to consist of 2 components, a "democrat" one and a "liar" one.  Now, the difficult question for Polish schoolchildren becomes: which component is the 'relevant' one in explaining that "promises" are not being kept? 

Perhaps Monarchist thinks that 'nondemocratic' liars, say for instance monarchical ones, do keep their promises?   Perhaps he thinks that there is more lying going on in "democracies" as opposed to autocracies or totalitarian systems?  Perhaps he thinks that 'freedom of political speech' promotes lying instead of truth-telling?

We will never know the answers to these important questions.  But, this (kind of absurdity) is what happens when people are guided by ideological dogmas as opposed to empirical observations.   

@marcfrans

Submitted by Monarchist on Thu, 2008-01-31 11:21.

Let me help you to understand... A king doesn't care about gaining the support of the people. If he promise something that means that he already decided to do this. While a democrat is a shameless liar who firstly make a lot of promises to win elections and later give a damn about cheated naive crowds.

State of Britain

Submitted by fred middleton on Wed, 2008-01-30 21:17.

Britain has essentially become a hedonistic society which doesn't like to think about unpleasant facts (the media do our thinking for us). Such a society, like the corrupt, supine Roman Empire cannot stand up to barbarian invasion. Yet the seeds of a better future were sown in the Roman world by Christianity. God willing, this will happen again.

I've read dozens of

Submitted by counterjihadist on Thu, 2008-01-24 17:58.

I've read dozens of hand-wringing stories like this one, lamenting the the government of [fill in your EUropean country name here:] 's decision to ignore the will of its people and proceed with the ceding of its sovereignty to an unelected cabal of elites.  But, other than that brief, but glorious 'Referendum' protest by MEPs last month, there appears to be a stunning lack of public dissent on the matter.

Although I live across the pond, I read several EUrosceptic blogs.  Aside from some very articulate and outraged individual bloggers and commenters, there appears to be only tacit acquiesence.  This puzzles me and other Americans to no end.  Docility, heretofore, has not been a trait exhibited by Europeans in the face of tyranny.  What gives?