I voted out, and I want you to understand why:
1. I simply don’t consider it to be a legitimate form of governance, in being neither representative of, nor accountable to, any useful definition of a collective ‘us’. I respect that you may feel differently.
2. The noble ideal of increasing harmony and wellbeing between european nations reached its high water mark pre-Maastricht, and that since then it has been working in reverse. I will not condone what has been done to an entire generation of young people in Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy. Life chances ruined by the Euro with endless 40% youth employment.
In what universe was I going to tacitly support an institution I didn’t believe in, carrying out actions that I abhor?
Regardless of whether ‘Remain’ or ‘Leave’ wins the day. Because regardless of who wins, it won’t be decisive in either direction.
The question is to whom will we be the better neighbours?
I want a Europe that enables the power and influence of Britain in the world. For, in achieving this, our government then has in its hands the tools to maximise the welfare and well-being of the people in Britain. This requires change. At all times and in all places the willingness of a nation-state to embrace change is an absolute precondition of its future success. Allowing divergence is not something the post-Maastricht EU is known for, and this has retarded our capacity for change.
If we seek we maximise the power and influence of Britain in the world, then we need to change and we likewise need Europe to change too.
Reading Aaron Ellis’s thoughts on the unexpected “no” from Cameron on Friday – as well as the mournings and musings of various others – has prompted me to pause for thought. HMG has always sought to have British commissioners holding the economic portfolio in Brussels, in order that the economic regulation that emerges has a flavour that is acceptable to the British palate. It is perhaps no coincidence that financial regulation became indigestible once labour abandoned the principle of occupying the economic portfolio at all costs – to get Baroness Ashton into the new foreign policy portfolio – thereby allowing France to install Barnier into our old redoubt. This perhaps explains why Britain is so nervous about the coming tide of financial regulation, when we have not previously been overruled on such matters via QMV, but has Cameron played a blinder or a poor hand badly?
Rather depends on how deluded you are, for there was very little choice available to Cameron.
Surprise surprise, the eurozone crisis of confidence has returned with a vengeance, only this time with apocalyptic statements from the EU’s president, Herman Van Rumpoy, that if the Euro did not survive, neither would the EU. First we must strip away the hyperbole; the presumption of a continuation of europe’s ‘natural’ state of warfare and ethnic cleansing without the moderating influence of a pan-european ‘national’ identity is utter clap-trap. The reality is that if the Euro does not survive then the EU of ever-deeper political union will not survive, instead it might devolve back to something that more closely resembles the European Community of old. Whether this is a terrible thing is a matter of perspective. However, there is no doubt that the current Eurozone without full economic governance and the political mandate for a transfer-union will never function effectively, or that the current direction of sequential bail-outs as contagion spreads is destined for catastrophic failure for all members and neighbours.
So if political union is impossible, and collapse is unconscionable, what other option exists?
A lack of representative governance is playing havoc with the future of the Eurozone, and its cause is a democratic initiative from the German high court whereby it placed limits on the power of the executive to give away its authority to govern without reference to the elected parliament. The constitutional court ruled that the Bundestag must be given a full vote before further power is transferred to Brussels, and further stating that ultimate sovereignty must rest with the member states.
German parliamentary sovereignty is now threatening the future of the Eurozone, and by extension the wider economic recovery of EU as a whole.
First of all this is not a party political article, nor should it be construed as a recommendation of the Lib-Dems in the coming election, vote where your convictions lie. What this article intends to demonstrate is that the Lib-Dem’s are a crucial function of our political system, and their apparent flaws are in fact vital to the operation of that function.
So, what are the problems with the Lib-Dems that make them so objectionable? Well, this boils down to two core problems; the first of which is that in a First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) electoral system a vote for them is essentially a waste, the second is that their policies are rarely conform to coherent platform that is recognisably guided by core principles.