“Our Rulers’ Building”: the EU Commission
In his essay in the paywalled DT Robert Tombs raises questions and makes observations which deserve a wide audience. The title couldn’t be more emphatic: “This Brexit election will decide if we can call ourselves a true democracy” (paywalled link). It is a proper tour-de-force, every paragraph screams out to be underlined and handed around. Firstly,Tombs gives a brief historical introduction to set the scene and then continues:
“The election of 2019 will decide whether that very democracy, created so slowly and so painfully, can still function in 21st-century Europe.
Many politicians and commentators are trying to minimise the importance of next month’s vote, claiming that it is about all sorts of other things than Brexit, supposedly more important to “ordinary people”. I doubt most of the electorate will be convinced. The issue that will decide the outcome is Brexit, and Brexit will show whether we are a true or a sham democracy.
All across the democratic world, more and more power has shifted away from elected national governments towards non-elected bodies – international organisations, law courts, treaties, quangos. Governments have voluntarily surrendered their own authority. But in doing so, they have limited democratic choice: voters are told that there are things they cannot do, choices they cannot make.
This has gone furthest in EU member states. A void has been created between rulers and ruled. Two networks of power, influence and patronage have grown up: one based on domestic politics, the other based on the EU institutions. These two networks – two establishments, one national, one trans-national, which include politicians, civil servants, academics, business lobbies, non-governmental organisations – overlap in every EU country.” (paywalled link)
Tombs next shifts his attention to the EU:
“We in Britain are not the first to try to prise them apart and take back control of our own rulers. The French and Dutch tried, when they voted against the EU draft constitution in 2005. The Greeks tried in 2015. The Italians are still trying. So far, they have all found it impossible: in the EU, voting no longer works.
Supporters of the EU proclaim that this is in the nature of things. We live, they imply, in a post-democratic world in which the realities of modern global power are beyond the control of nation states and their voters. So if people vote the right way – the way that the trans-national establishment approves – then their vote will be respected. Indeed, it will even be described as “final”. But if they vote the wrong way, their vote will be ignored or reversed. In the case of Italy and Greece, this was done through unvarnished threats of economic ruin.” (paywalled link)
Tombs gives this interpretation:
“As we have seen in those countries, and see in Britain, too, since 2016, the trans-national establishment inside the country will cooperate with the attempt to nullify a “wrong” vote. It may do so with the best of intentions: its members probably genuinely believe that their electors – ill-informed, prejudiced, backward – have made a disastrous choice. In Britain, a much tougher nut than Greece or Italy, the whole thing has dragged out over years of domestic and international wrangling, which has inevitably caused anger and created on both sides a sense of being disfranchised, even betrayed.” (paywalled link)
Next, his description of our own situation bears keeping in mind, especially where he points out the actual meaning of the Remainers’ “achievement”. The emphasis is by me:
“Let us look at the nature of the problem. I do not believe it is essentially a British problem, proof of our lack of national solidarity, of our xenophobic insularity, or of the breakdown of our “archaic” constitution. Indeed, I would argue the opposite. We have contained this crisis within our mainstream political institutions, and we seem now to be within sight of carrying out the legal will of the electorate as expressed in the 2016 referendum. I fervently hope that this will rebuild popular confidence in our democratic system.
Which other EU member state would be capable of this achievement? Ah, say Remainers, but none of them wants to. Well, this was not President Macron’s view: he believed that a referendum in France would have had the same outcome as here. But let’s accept the argument: none of them wants to. This is not, however, because of the overwhelming popularity of the EU. Rather it is because leaving now seems impossible.
The turmoil – largely self-imposed – that we have been going through has undoubtedly handed an immense propaganda victory to the EU: attempting to leave now seems clearly fraught with danger. But note what this means. Taking back control is no longer an option: democratic choice within the EU is now limited to what the EU permits.” (paywalled link)
His following remarks need to be taken up by us in any argument with Remain, be they Tory or indeed Labour:
“So our coming election, just as much or perhaps more than those of 1831 and 1910, is about how we are to be governed; or more exactly, whether we are to govern ourselves. The trans-national establishment scoffs that this is mere nostalgia. One of the world’s richest and most powerful states is incapable of doing what Norway, Switzerland and Singapore somehow seem to manage. Those taking this view have political attitudes that would have been familiar to Earl Grey in the 1830s: the common people are incapable of rational choice; they must follow the lead of the superior classes.” (paywalled link)
Indeed so! Tombs’ concluding remarks on the meaning of democracy are even more important, especially since our own contemporary ‘ruling classes’ are disregarding it in this GE’s campaign – the emphasis again is by me:
“But even if the superior classes today – or indeed in the past – had shown themselves consistently capable of ruling in the interests of all rather than in their own, this would be a complete misunderstanding of democracy. Democracy is not a system for discovering the “right answer” to political issues: we can rarely if ever be sure what the right answer is. Democracy, rather, is a system for creating consent and solidarity by allowing all to have an equal vote. For making people feel that the way they are governed, though not perfect, is at least one in which they are fairly consulted and their voices listened to. So that, even if they do not get their own way, they accept the outcome without trying to sabotage or evade it.
That is what we have come perilously close to losing. Next month we have the chance to regain it, with all the opportunities and risks that democracy entails.” (paywalled link)
I doubt very much that his words will be heard by the number-crunching ‘election specialists’ who regard us a pawns, to do as we’re told, being given the choice between one or the other shiny bauble of no real worth.
We however can and must use his arguments wherever we are. Slapping them round the heads of the canvassers coming to infest your doorsteps in the coming weeks would be a good start …!
How so, It seems pretty irrelevant to the article?
Yes Jim. I agree that it wasn’t relevant to the article but relevant to the poster who wanted to know who was spending UKIP’s money. It is in the public interest to know who funds political parties and how much is given. I would be interested to know how much the EU pays UKIP and the Brexit Party. It is an anomaly that the Union which you wish to leave is one of your financial supporters. Nothing untoward suggested.
Sorry Colin, I did not realise you were replying to TG Stokes. As many on here and elsewhere have said, if you want to know what’s going on, follow the money.
My experience of politics and my study of history points to a failure of the Party system. There are many examples not just in this country.
If something is wrong, to continue in denial will ultimately end in failure. It is necessary not to be in denial but to think “where did things go wrong and what can we do to put them right?”
Just as if one is digging a hole and, realising that a hole is in the wrong place, or not needed, then one must stop digging. Adding more parties that may or may not solve the malaise, disenfranchisement or halt the collapse of our society most probably is not the answer.
We must not just stop digging but must get out of the hole.
Take ‘cabinets’. Decisions are made at an executive level. Is that democracy? Do the members in those cabinets represent the people of members who are not in those cabinets?
At the moment power percolates upward away from grassroots and thus disenfranchises grassroots. Clearly that is not the answer. At the moment representatives are beholding to their parties and not to the people that they represent. Clearly that is not the answer either.
Where did the structure start going wrong? Probably at some point in the early 19th century? That isn’t the answer either. There hasn’t been a wrong or right it is a development and mistakes have had to be made to learn. PR has to be a step in the right direction, one would think, but unless power is brought right down to ground level we are still going to have abuse.
Representatives must represent otherwise they are bogus. If they did as their remit described then the people would be sovereign. They cannot serve two masters! Which is what is happening now.
As difficult as it may sound that rather destroys the concept of political parties as they stand today. Governance is surely a series of decision making, philosophical debate about the motivations in decision making should be just that.
The main problem in our governance at whatever level is negligence or incompetence and the abuse of power.
My own feelings are that this problem of poor governance and loss of democracy will not be solved until the whole dysfunctional mess of UK politics is turned on its head. Humpty will not be put together again.
As I understand the error lies in first. As you say.. MPsshouldbe elected to represent equal areas or similar communities to represnt similar numbers of people to prevent inequalities. …
Secondly, to prevent as happened ” Factionalism ” or self serving amalgamations. The party system system evolved.. This solved one problem,, but left open the problem of just lying about what you are going to do which was sort of solved with invention of by the manifesto . This was a supposedly incorruptable version of the word manifesto. By using a “ships manifest ” belief which was sacrosanct at a time when all trade depended on truthfullness of the cargo list, or Manifest.
.Unfortunately, politicians being only human can corrupt anything.
So, all that is needed is a simple tightening up of each step to return to full and fool proof democracy. Any other course leeds to serious inequality and criminal exploitation.. As Now.
This sloppiness and criminallity has lead to further wholesale corruption of our constitution for various groupings advantage to the extent that our country now works to advantages to the perpetrators, and emasculation of punishment for the crimes..
TG:
“MPs should be elected to represent equal areas or similar” I agree but with changing populations and/or boundaries that is not practical. What is practical is to get rid of the archaic voting systems in Parliament and replace them with one where votes have an apportioning factor applied reflecting the constituency population, votes cast or similar.
It is not difficult to implement with an electronic voting system which could also ensure that the voting MP had been present for a reasonable part of the debate.
Your article by Robert Tombs is pretty near the mark. Then he gets a bit vague, showing that he does not understand. He wrote quite a way down:”Democracy is a system of creating consent and solidarity by allowing all to have an equal vote”. ALMOST RIGHT, EXCEPT THE LAST FEW WORDS.
First, what politicians, the general public and Mr Tombs are persuaded to call “democracy” is not democracy at all but “universal suffrage”. It is patently obvious that “having an equal vote” has not produced the said harmony or solidarity he mentions but conflict and division. This is because the party system sets one section of society against another, turning elections into a battle for power over the other sections.
Since the original organic genuine English constitution was originally designed to keep power under control, by separating the powers of the Commons, Lords and Monarchy, each jealousy guarding its freedom to act independently it was very hard for anyone to gain too much power without the free consent of those three institutions.
As historian Sir Lewis Namier pointed out in a public lecture in 1952 about the time of the Queen’s accession, with the advent of the modern disciplined party political system the Monarch lost the ancient prerogative to appoint Ministers of the Crown because Party Managers could insist that those appointed by the Monarch did not have the confidence of the House of Commons which they then controlled!!!! All that was needed was to Whip the Commons and whip the Lords and “advise” the Monarch to do as He/She was told and the English people lost their protection and ultimately their liberty, epitomised by Labour opening the flood gates to immigration and repealing a Treason act in 1967 in order that Heath, using his “universal suffrage majority” could bludgeon the House of Commons by all sorts of threats(as Enoch Powell recorded) into passing the European Communities Act 1972.
May I refer readers to the New Chartist Movement website and to an article by William Keyte about dem,ocracy. Then you will se how we have been deceived. john.cruttwell@sfr.fr
They had universal suffrage in the Bolshevik Empire although the choice of parties was limited to one. We also have one party, the liblabcon party. Were we to vote for the Brexit party we would hand the election to Corbyn who refuses to bomb Russia which is an essential platform of the liblabcon party like mass uncontrolled immigration, membership of the EU, thoughtcrime laws aimed at the English etc; it goes without saying we cant vote for UKIP because that would be racist.
There is no democracy without a fair electoral system where every vote counts towards electing an MP. FPTP means the liblabcon of troughers and unpatriotic skunks every time.
Although I appreciate your sentiments it is not UKIP whom you cannot vote for, it’s For Britain. Try arranging a public meeting without Antifa shutting it down. I should know, I’m a party member.
Martin,
I’ve made a comment to you about parties earlier.
I think that it is impossible to have any kind of multi-person legislative chamber with a total absence of party structure. Suppose every MP is elected as the independent representative of their constituency. Who would they be running for office against? Another independent presumably. What would each have as a saleable argument? A local issue? I do not see how such a body of individuals can collectively run the country, which after all is the purpose of the body. In order to avoid 650 different voices each shouting for the local needs of their constituents, there would have to be some sort of organisation into groups in the chamber, who advocate a different approach to a course of action. What’s another name to a group? A party perhaps?
I apologise if I misunderstand your stance on party structure, if you refer to the current LibLabCon whom we are stuck with, then I quite agree. But First Past The Post forces a situation where the electorate have to choose between just two party groups, regardless of the issues of the day. Other parties in reality don’t get a look-in. Anyone who thinks FPTP is a better system than alternatives is basically advocating being stuck with the current three parties without change, the system doesn’t allow alternatives to get elected in significant numbers to reflect change in voters’ attitudes. We have now a unique situation where the public, and in response politicians, are realigning themselves on EU ‘In’ and ‘Out’ lines. But, again, because of the restrictions of FPTP, the realignment has to be imposed on the three parties we’re stuck with. In other countries, UKIP or Brexit Party would by now (or shortly) have MPs, but we all know that isn’t going to happen. People as usual have to choose which of the two main parties they want to form the government (because the ‘other’ one will be so awful).
The Tory party will make sure we never get the chance to use the PR election system because it will be THAT, rather than not getting Out by Halloween, that will see them toast.
Good article but I don ‘t believe at the end o the day that it tackles the real issue.
It fails to bring home the truth that there is a world of difference in leaving ‘Europe’ and leaving the “EU” and convincing the electorate that the EU is a dangerous all consuming illegal ENEMY
We got off on the wrong foot with mrs May’s “friendly “ approach the EU are not and never will be friends
Take yourselves back to an earlier election Where a Cartoon dominated the papers and hence the BBC.
The cartoon showed Labour leader face and shirt ,with The SNP leader in his shirt pocket, ( Or it may have been vice versa ),.
This won them the election. So , it worked.
Pinch it.! A blank face with The words ” 13 Faceless , Bureaucrats ” , above shirt with GB on its pocket. containing daces of the trio.of leaders.
Or invent a new one . Or are we useless. Ceratainly we are too useless to print and co-ordinate its distribution.
Power has shifted to supra national and international organisations such as law making ( Parliament ), law enforcing ( Civil service ), etc absolute fact !…
All this is demonstrably true and fact. But far far too clever. And miles away from labour party tested formula of emotion. Absolute fact.!
A simple emotive statement.
Blocked by the media.TheBBC was the key all along..
Nigel needed helpers not competitors. Revealed. We are now reliant on ” Falling out of thieves “… A different puzzle.
Interestingly. Who is spending UKIPs money.?
What do you mean who is spending Ukip’s money?