Written by ‘Briefings for Britain’
This article was first published in ‘Briefings for Britain’ and we republish with their kind permission.
~~~ *** ~~~
[Part one was published here yesterday]
Democratic socialism
Democratic socialism is made-up of a-number of irreducible principles which have clear implications for practical political action. These principles are:
-
Democracy
-
The ‘rule of law’; and
-
Equality, solidarity and community.
They stand in contrast to the atomising individualism, indifference to – often the promotion of – commodification and the imperative towards technocracy embodied in neo-liberalism.
If an individual or institution abrogates the principles that underpin democratic socialist politics that individual or institution is, by definition, antithetical to democratic socialism. Over six decades, the Court of Justice has explicitly negated each of the principles listed above, in order to play the role that it has, in building and sustaining the EU’s legal order.
Democracy and democratic culture
The first irreducible principle is ‘democracy’. As the socialist thinker R H Tawney highlighted, democracy is a ‘culture’[iv], based upon citizenship and the inherent equality of people who have the power to decide their political and economic destiny. Tawney was echoing his predecessors in the ‘radical tradition’ of this country (embodied in characters such as Overton and Lilburne, Wilkes, Cobbett and Paine and movements such as the Chartists) which held that political power must lay with the people. It is sometimes referred to as ‘popular sovereignty’. Ultimately it is the principle that the people have the authority to determine their own political and economic destiny, without external constraint.
The Court of Justice has repeatedly shown its contempt for democracy. It has – through its jurisprudence – awarded the EU’s legal order the position of being the ‘supreme law’ for 28 countries and therefore stripped the democratic (and legal) institutions in the member states of their power. This process has been neatly summed up by Court of Justice scholar Alec Stone-Sweet, as a judicial coup d’etat.[v] Echoing Tony Benn’s famous description of what EU membership meant for the UK’s democracy.
Thanks to EU legal supremacy, the technocrats, jurists and lobbyists in and around the EU are able to exploit the vague and open-ended EU Treaties and exercise unaccountable law-making power over swathes of policy areas that member state electorates, assemblies, parliaments and courts cannot prevent, amend or reverse. The result has been a severing of the connection between the electorate and governing institutions i.e. their ability through voting and debate to hold decision makers accountable, change (across both major and minor areas) policy and have their principles and policy preferences, e.g. over ideas of ‘justice’, reflected in the government that governs them.
Consequently, the electorates of the member states have come to live in what might be called ‘residual democracies’. In these traduced polities, their political and legal power only extends to the ‘left-overs’ i.e. those areas of policy that the EU has not yet decided to exercise its supreme legal authority-over and which do not contradict existing EU law and legal principles or that are so obviously outside the purview of the Treaties that it would be impossible for the most activist court to claim they fell under its jurisdiction. These areas are few and getting fewer.
The ‘rule of law’ and democratic socialism
The second principle is the ‘rule of law’. Once described memorably by the radical historian E P Thompson as ‘an unqualified human good’[vi] and by R H Tawney as imperative to securing the primary and essential freedoms of people in a democratic culture.[vii] However, the ECJ – in its role as ‘Master of the Treaties’[viii] – has regularly undermined the ‘rule of law’. Rather than an independent adjudicator ensuring certainty and predictability in the rules, it has acted as a policy-making Star Chamber pursuing political ends. Chasing political goals rather than behaving impartially and predictably and ensuring certainty and stability is the behaviour of a despotic institution.
[To be concluded tomorrow in Part three]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Footnotes:
[iv] Tawney, R H. Equality. (1931).
[v] Stone Sweet, A. The Juridical Coup d’État and the Problem of Authority. Vol. 08 No. 10. (2007). P 924.
[vi] Thompson, E P. Whigs and Hunters: The Origins of the Black Act. (1975). P 266. Cited by Cole, D H. An Unqualiifed Human Good: E P Thompson and the Rule of Law. Journal of Law and Society. Volume 28. No 2. (2001). P 182.
[vii] Tawney, R H. Equality. (1931). P 227.
[viii] Alter, K ‘The European Court’s Political Power: the Emergence of an Authoritative International Court in the European Union’ (1996) and Alter, K. ‘Who Are the Masters of the Treaty?: European Government and the European Court of Justice’. (1998). Cited in Alter, K. ‘The European Court’s Political Power: selected essays’. (2010).
Photo by mike-andrews 
Did not John Lilburne end up saying he’d prefer the king back? Reminds one of how people thought the EU a wonderful vision of a utopia where nasty national goals were put aside. Yeah we just got international nasty goals like even less democracy.
Socialism is only ever in favour of ‘democracy’ just long enough to allow the mob to overthrow the existing order and install the socialists in power. The mob is referred to as ‘the people’ at the time, even if they are a minority, as they typically are. As soon as the socialists are in power, any idea of democracy is thereafter brutally suppressed – usually by setting up a one party police state. As for the rule of law, that has always been anathema to socialism. To the extent that ‘democratic socialism’ is supposed to mean socialism which is in favour of democracy and the rule of law, ‘democratic socialism’ is an oxymoron.
Sorry I know it’s rude of me but I didn’t make it to the end. Every time I read ‘democracy’ I found myself seeing kakistocracy.
I (also) found this article extremely difficult to follow. However, since it seems to be saying that the European Court of Justice has systematically helped increase the power of the EU at the expense of individual Nations. And the ECJ has never ruled in favour of Justice but always in favour of the EU’s continuing power grab. I can only assume that it is probably arguing in favour of us completing our escape from the EU and never, ever, voting for any Party which shows signs of wanting to return.
NO ALIGNMENT of any sort say I. Complete and absolute separation. No place anywhere in our legal system for the ECJ. Do it Boris. Get on with the job.
I had to think about it in reading through this item from Briefings for Britain, but I found I had a smile on my face by the time I had finished ! – Inescapable fact is that membership of the EU is the short cut to somewhere that no real Briton would wish to arrive at, and that’s a fact !
What we have always suspected looks incredibly true.
Credibility of European Court of Human Rights lies in ruins after judges’ links to Soros revealed, please see link below.
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/481651-george-soros-european-court-judges/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Email
Soros is a real bag of mischief and it goes to show that the globalist billionaire foundation class have political agendas that need the spotlight shone on them.
It should be stated that the European Convention on Human Rights and its European Court of Human Rights are part of a completely different legal system to the EU. The ECHR and ECtHR are both part of the Council of Europe which has 47 member states including Russia and the UK.
We can only hope that Soros upsets Russia so putting an end to his interference.
This is something out of John Mortimer’s Rumpole of the Bailey, right?
– atomising individualism
– commodification (Spell checker does not recognise this word. It is in the full OED).
– imperative towards technocracy embodied in neo-liberalism.
– If . . . .abrogates the principles
– underpin democratic socialist politics
– by definition, antithetical to democratic socialism
Rumpole: Yes Milord, my client does understand English but only British English.
(under breath – But not pretentious twaddle)
Judge: what was that?
Rumpole: Milord, my client is not familiar with these people.
Judge: Mmm. To continue
– Tawney was echoing his predecessors in the ‘radical tradition’ of this country (embodied in characters such as Overton and Lilburne, Wilkes, Cobbett and Paine.
Rumpole: (under breath) Yes Milord, my client sees these people down the pub every Wednesday.
Judge: what was that?
Rumpole: Just thinking Milord, my client will know of these people by Wednesday.
I seem to remember Mortimer saying that after Judges’ summing up, he often had to explain to client whether they were guilty or not.
I have tried for much of my life to get engineers to explain whatever they are saying in plain English. If not, you will lose your audience very quickly. Ordering ”some spares” (they are 300,000 pounds per engine) is not good enough. Say what you mean and be accurate with examples. Hand drawn sketches (and most are not artists!) and a few arrows – clear understanding.
I have also been confronted by one of my joiners brandishing a hammer, for taking the micky. I think the word I had used had three syllables.
A ‘Plain English Golden Bull’ nominee.
I was just about to have a go… “Stand in contrast to the atomising individualism, indifference to– commodification Abrogating antethical technocracy embodied in neo -liberalism..
Like .
How could I have missed Part 1.
I look forward to your comments tomorrow
Oh look – sciurus. Or is it felis mortus?