Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Richard North: useful idiot or Europhile wolf in Eurosceptic’s clothing?
4 views
Skip to first unread message
RH
May 10, 2013, 4:43:27 PM5/10/13
to
Richard North: useful idiot or Europhile wolf in Eurosceptic’s
clothing?
Campaign for an Independent Britain meeting 4th May 2013
Dr Richard North: The way forward
North has condensed the views espoused in his speech into written
form on the CIB website – see
http://www.freebritain.org.uk/_blog/Free_Britain/post/an-eu-free-future-for-all-by-dr-richard-north/
And
http://www.freebritain.org.uk/_blog/Free_Britain/post/turnout-by-dr-richard-north/
).
His contribution was very odd indeed for someone who is supposedly
strongly Eurosceptic. His “way forward” is for the UK to remain
entwined in coils of the EU for the foreseeable future. Of course,
North does not describe his suggestions as leading to this, but that
is the practical consequences of what he advocates.
North’s strategy for the UK’s departure from the EU is this:
“….invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, leading to a negotiated
exit based on UK membership of the EFTA/EEA as an interim settlement.
To ensure short-term continuity, we would have all EU law repatriated,
giving time for examination and selective repeal, and the enactment of
replacement legislation as necessary – all over a period of some
years.”
He wants the UK to sign up to the type of arrangements Norway and
Switzerland have with the EU. This requires them to adopt a large
proportion of EU regulations (not least because of the ever
broadening bureaucratic demands of the EU obsession with competition
and harmonisation ), pay large annual sums to the EU to subsidize the
poorer members of the EU and worst of all, subscribe to the four EU
“freedoms”, the free movement of goods, services, capital and labour
across not only the EU but also the European Economic Area (EEA).
That would be bad enough but his naivety over what Article 50 entails
is startling. Here is the article in full:
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in
accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European
Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by
the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an
agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its
withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future
relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in
accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the
Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent
of the European Parliament.
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the
date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that,
two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless
the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned,
unanimously decides to extend this period.
4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European
Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State
shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or
Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)
(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its
request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.
(http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-european-
union-and-comments/title-6-final-provisions/137-article-50.html).
It is strongly implied in the Article that unilateral withdrawal is
possible in para 3:
“ The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the
date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that,
two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2”.
However, the clause does not explicitly give the right of unilateral
secession and could be interpreted as merely referring to how any
agreement might be scheduled to take effect.
The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties cites two instances
where a party wants to withdraw unilaterally from a treaty which does
not make any provision for withdrawal : where all parties recognise an
informal right to do so and where the situation has changed so
substantially that the obligations of a signatory are radically
different from that originally entered into. The informal right does
not apply here and although the organisation (the EU) the UK belongs
to now is radically different from that which they originally joined
in 1973 (the EEC), the UK has signed up to new treaties to agree to
the new circumstances as they have arisen.
The only precedent of any sort for withdrawal is Greenland’s
secession in 1985 from the European Economic Community (EEC). The
was facilitated by the Greenland Treaty. However, it is not an
obviously relevant precedent because Greenlanders retain Danish
citizenship for Greenland has home rule not full independence from
Denmark. They are consequently full EU citizens. Because Greenland
is also one of the Overseas Countries and Territories of the EU it
is also subject to some EU law and regulations, mainly those relating
to the Single Market. .
Even if it is accepted by the other EU members that there is a
unilateral right of secession, the fact that it could only take
place legally after two years would give the remainder of the EU the
opportunity to run the UK ragged before the UK left.
As for getting an agreement which would allow the UK to generally re-
establish its sovereignty, especially over the control of its borders,
this is most improbable. A Qualified Majority in the European
Council is required t and even if such a majority is obtained the
European Parliament can block the secession. The potential for delay
and blackmail by the EU of the UK is considerable. In any event it is
likely is that the EU would drive a bargain which is greatly to the
UK’s disadvantage. This would not simply be out of spite towards the
UK. The Eurofederalists would be terrified of creating a precedent
for any other EU member which might wish to radically change their
relationship with the EU. That would make them demand conditions of
the UK which were so unappealing it would deter other member states
from following suit. There would also be the danger that the
Europhile UK political elite would take the opportunity to agree to
disadvantageous terms for the UK simply to keep the UK attached to the
EU in the manner that Norway and Switzerland are attached. The stay-in
camp could use Article 50 to argue that whether the British people
want to be in or out, the cost of leaving would be too heavy because
of this treaty requirement.
The Gordian knot of Article 50 can be cut simply by passing an Act of
Parliament repealing all the treaties that refer to the EU from the
Treaty of Rome onwards. No major UK party could object to this
because all three have, at one time or another, declared that
Parliament remains supreme and can repudiate anything the EU does if
it so chooses.
If the stay-in camp argue that would be illegal because of the treaty
obligation, the OUT camp should simply emphasise (1) that
international law is no law because there is never any means of
enforcing it within its jurisdiction is a state rejects it and (2)
that treaties which do not allow for contracting parties to simply
withdraw are profoundly undemocratic because they bind future
governments.
The OUT camp should press the major political parties to commit
themselves to ignoring Article 50. If a party refuses that can be used
against them because it will make them look suspicious. Before the
vote
How much of the vote does UKIP command?
North also addressed the question of UKIP’s share of the vote in the
recent council elections. This he represented as trivial because
although they took 25% of the vote the turnout was very low (around
30% overall). He ignores one important fact about turnout: if the
turnout is shrinking then the potency of those who vote rises. UKIP
voters and those willing to vote to come out of the EU at a referendum
may be much more inclined to vote than those who want the status quo
or at least are not motivated to vote for the UK’s independence.
Based on objective facts North is far too pessimistic about obtaining
a vote to leave. There are two great differences between now and the
1975 referendum. In 1975 the British public had only two years’
experience of the EEC which was a vastly less intrusive body than the
EU is now. If a referendum is held in the next few years the
electorate will have 40 years of ever greater interference by Brussels
with British politics and in the lives of Britons. To this can be
added the growing number of prominent voices, both political and from
the media and business , which are calling for either an outright
campaign to leave the EU or at least a reshaping of the EU in such a
radical fashion that it has no chance of success. Both factors will
lend vastly greater potency to the OUT camp now than was the case in
1975.
North’s tactics before a referendum
Much of this was driven by fear, fear that a the British electorate
would not vote to come out. The consequence is that North proposes a
complex, expensive and above all time consuming schedule of
preparatory work before any referendum is held. North’s addressed the
subject under five separate heads. I comment separately on each.
Reassurance for business
North argues that because the EU is first and foremost a political
construct, business has no right to have a say in whether the UK is in
or out of the EU. I have sympathy with that view , but North
immediately capsized this position by stating:
“…business has a right to expect a predictable and stable regulatory
and trading environment, the status of which is affected by our
membership. Therefore, we need to be able to assure the business
community that, should we leave the EU, there would be no adverse
effects.
“In effect, that would mean “protecting” membership of the Single
Market – which could be achieved through EEA membership. And, as long
as that membership is assured, business has no locus in the broader
debate.”
By taking this position on the Single Market North is effectively
granting business a very large say in how we are governed, because
continued membership of the Single Market will require at the least
subscription to the four “freedoms” and the acceptance of EU laws
relating to the Single Market. That will greatly impinge upon the UK’s
sovereignty.
An alternative to the EU
North believes that we should not merely take back power from Brussels
but also stop the power regained being grabbed by Westminster. He
starts from the claim that the UK has never been a democracy. That
is true in the sense that there has never been direct democracy – that
is no more than a commonplace – but for a century before the UK was
signed up to the EEC in 1973 there was a good deal of democratic
control because the UK’s politics were national. British politicians
then could not hide behind supranational agreements such as those
governing the EU to avoid responsibility for unpopular policies or be
forced to adopt policies which were in the interest of foreign powers
and to the UK’s disadvantage simply because of Treaty arrangements.
If the UK leaves the EU utterly and our relationship with the EU
becomes the same as we have with any other foreign power British
politics will again become national not supranational. That is the
most certain way of re-democratising the UK.
What does North want? He is much taken with the Harrogate Agenda
(HA) (http://harrogateagenda.com/). This has six demands which are
similar in tone to those of the 19th century Chartists and the 17th
century Levellers before them. Here are a couple of the demands to
give a flavour of the HA:
2. local democracy: the foundation of our democracy shall be the
counties (or other local units as may be defined), which shall become
constitutional bodies exercising under the control of their peoples
all powers of legislation, taxation and administration not
specifically granted by the people to the national government;
4. all legislation subject to consent: no legislation or treaty shall
take effect without the direct consent of the majority of the people,
by positive vote if so demanded, and that no legislation or treaty
shall continue to have effect when that consent is withdrawn by the
majority of the people;
Whether or not these are practical (which I very much doubt if put
forward in this extreme form) , there is irony in the fact that North
espouses such ideas, because his proposals for a new relationship
between the UK and the EU would utterly undermine the thrust of the
HA demands for a UK entangled in an EFTA or similar arrangement
would still be subject to decisions being made by foreigners with
doubtless the willing complicity of Westminster politicians. The
British political class is not going to vanish so the only realistic
way of making them behave reasonably is to force them to operate
within a national context.
A network for dissemination
Here are North’s proposals:
“ Spreading the message is an essential part of any campaign, but
reliance on the media is not going to be sufficient. Formal and
informal networks will have to be built, some not dissimilar to direct
marketing networks. Activities should include formal training and
education, as well as more general propagandising.
Many revolutionary organisations have acquired their own newspapers,
or news magazines, as a means of better spreading the message.”
Even if all this was possible, which is very doubtful because it
would need serious money as well as willing hands, it would take far
too long to establish as an effective propaganda tool. . A referendum
if it comes will not be that far in the future. What is needed is a
simple readily understandable message such as “Are we to be masters in
our own house” repeated as often as possible through the national and
local media. With more and more politicians, mediafolk, businessmen
and various celebrities making Anti-EU noises this is not a forlorn
hope.
Agitation
North proposes a campaign of civil disobedience, including the late
payment for “Council Tax, water bills, BBC license fees and other such
fees” and visiting every “agency, every employment office, etc. and
remove all information (leaflets, brochures) not in English”. He goes
on to say that there are “A very wide range of activities is in fact
possible, many entirely risk-free and totally within the law”.
I doubt whether in these politically correct and increasingly
authoritarian times that there would be many which are “entirely risk-
free and totally within the law”. Late payment of the BBC license
could get you a criminal record; removing information leaflets not in
English would probably get you investigated for racial harassment
because there would not be much point in removing them with running a
campaign saying what you were doing and why; failing to pay many
official bills on time could result in late payment surcharges. If
civil disobedience is urged it is important that the possible
consequences are spelt out to prospective candidates for such action.
Nonetheless that is not my main concern with civil disobedience
committed in this random fashion. Civil disobedience is only effective
if it is (1) focused, (2) publicity worthy (3) does not greatly
inconvenience or disgust the general public and (4) make the
protestors look ridiculous. Leaving people to engage in acts of
civil disobedience (particularly on a local scale) as they choose will
not meet those criteria. If it is to be used, civil disobedience must
be a national act. The Poll Tax disobedience is the best example in
modern British history of such action. A single issue: we won’t pay
the tax. It was perfect because it blocked up the magistrates courts
and brought the everyday justice system to its knees.
Sovereignty and opposition to immigration are the two strongest cards
the OUT camp has to play. If it is used , civil disobedience should
be designed to focus public interest on those two issues.
A coalition of allies
North tried to make a distinction between umbrella groups (bad) and
coalitions (good). In practice the two are indistinguishable. What
determines the unity of purpose of any coalescing groups is not what
they are called but the nature of the groups and their leaders.
North’s response to being challenged
During questions from the audience I said that North’s proposals were
an excellent recipe for remaining within the EU for the reasons I have
already given. North became very animated and spoke at considerable
length to refute what I was saying. People only behave in such a
manner during debate if they feel their position is under real threat.
The kindest interpretation of North’s position is that he is acting as
a useful idiot for the Eurofederalist cause in the mistaken belief
that things can be resolved to the UK’s advantage by talking, by
being “reasonable”; the unkindest interpretation is that he is a
Eurofederalist wolf in Eurosceptic clothing attempting to undermine
the campaign to remove the UK from the grip of the EU.
Robert Henderson
Read more at
http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2013/05/10/richard-north-useful-idiot-or-europhile-wolf-in-eurosceptics-clothing/
clothing?
Campaign for an Independent Britain meeting 4th May 2013
Dr Richard North: The way forward
North has condensed the views espoused in his speech into written
form on the CIB website – see
http://www.freebritain.org.uk/_blog/Free_Britain/post/an-eu-free-future-for-all-by-dr-richard-north/
And
http://www.freebritain.org.uk/_blog/Free_Britain/post/turnout-by-dr-richard-north/
).
His contribution was very odd indeed for someone who is supposedly
strongly Eurosceptic. His “way forward” is for the UK to remain
entwined in coils of the EU for the foreseeable future. Of course,
North does not describe his suggestions as leading to this, but that
is the practical consequences of what he advocates.
North’s strategy for the UK’s departure from the EU is this:
“….invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, leading to a negotiated
exit based on UK membership of the EFTA/EEA as an interim settlement.
To ensure short-term continuity, we would have all EU law repatriated,
giving time for examination and selective repeal, and the enactment of
replacement legislation as necessary – all over a period of some
years.”
He wants the UK to sign up to the type of arrangements Norway and
Switzerland have with the EU. This requires them to adopt a large
proportion of EU regulations (not least because of the ever
broadening bureaucratic demands of the EU obsession with competition
and harmonisation ), pay large annual sums to the EU to subsidize the
poorer members of the EU and worst of all, subscribe to the four EU
“freedoms”, the free movement of goods, services, capital and labour
across not only the EU but also the European Economic Area (EEA).
That would be bad enough but his naivety over what Article 50 entails
is startling. Here is the article in full:
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in
accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European
Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by
the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an
agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its
withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future
relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in
accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the
Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent
of the European Parliament.
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the
date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that,
two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless
the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned,
unanimously decides to extend this period.
4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European
Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State
shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or
Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)
(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its
request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.
(http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-european-
union-and-comments/title-6-final-provisions/137-article-50.html).
It is strongly implied in the Article that unilateral withdrawal is
possible in para 3:
“ The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the
date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that,
two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2”.
However, the clause does not explicitly give the right of unilateral
secession and could be interpreted as merely referring to how any
agreement might be scheduled to take effect.
The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties cites two instances
where a party wants to withdraw unilaterally from a treaty which does
not make any provision for withdrawal : where all parties recognise an
informal right to do so and where the situation has changed so
substantially that the obligations of a signatory are radically
different from that originally entered into. The informal right does
not apply here and although the organisation (the EU) the UK belongs
to now is radically different from that which they originally joined
in 1973 (the EEC), the UK has signed up to new treaties to agree to
the new circumstances as they have arisen.
The only precedent of any sort for withdrawal is Greenland’s
secession in 1985 from the European Economic Community (EEC). The
was facilitated by the Greenland Treaty. However, it is not an
obviously relevant precedent because Greenlanders retain Danish
citizenship for Greenland has home rule not full independence from
Denmark. They are consequently full EU citizens. Because Greenland
is also one of the Overseas Countries and Territories of the EU it
is also subject to some EU law and regulations, mainly those relating
to the Single Market. .
Even if it is accepted by the other EU members that there is a
unilateral right of secession, the fact that it could only take
place legally after two years would give the remainder of the EU the
opportunity to run the UK ragged before the UK left.
As for getting an agreement which would allow the UK to generally re-
establish its sovereignty, especially over the control of its borders,
this is most improbable. A Qualified Majority in the European
Council is required t and even if such a majority is obtained the
European Parliament can block the secession. The potential for delay
and blackmail by the EU of the UK is considerable. In any event it is
likely is that the EU would drive a bargain which is greatly to the
UK’s disadvantage. This would not simply be out of spite towards the
UK. The Eurofederalists would be terrified of creating a precedent
for any other EU member which might wish to radically change their
relationship with the EU. That would make them demand conditions of
the UK which were so unappealing it would deter other member states
from following suit. There would also be the danger that the
Europhile UK political elite would take the opportunity to agree to
disadvantageous terms for the UK simply to keep the UK attached to the
EU in the manner that Norway and Switzerland are attached. The stay-in
camp could use Article 50 to argue that whether the British people
want to be in or out, the cost of leaving would be too heavy because
of this treaty requirement.
The Gordian knot of Article 50 can be cut simply by passing an Act of
Parliament repealing all the treaties that refer to the EU from the
Treaty of Rome onwards. No major UK party could object to this
because all three have, at one time or another, declared that
Parliament remains supreme and can repudiate anything the EU does if
it so chooses.
If the stay-in camp argue that would be illegal because of the treaty
obligation, the OUT camp should simply emphasise (1) that
international law is no law because there is never any means of
enforcing it within its jurisdiction is a state rejects it and (2)
that treaties which do not allow for contracting parties to simply
withdraw are profoundly undemocratic because they bind future
governments.
The OUT camp should press the major political parties to commit
themselves to ignoring Article 50. If a party refuses that can be used
against them because it will make them look suspicious. Before the
vote
How much of the vote does UKIP command?
North also addressed the question of UKIP’s share of the vote in the
recent council elections. This he represented as trivial because
although they took 25% of the vote the turnout was very low (around
30% overall). He ignores one important fact about turnout: if the
turnout is shrinking then the potency of those who vote rises. UKIP
voters and those willing to vote to come out of the EU at a referendum
may be much more inclined to vote than those who want the status quo
or at least are not motivated to vote for the UK’s independence.
Based on objective facts North is far too pessimistic about obtaining
a vote to leave. There are two great differences between now and the
1975 referendum. In 1975 the British public had only two years’
experience of the EEC which was a vastly less intrusive body than the
EU is now. If a referendum is held in the next few years the
electorate will have 40 years of ever greater interference by Brussels
with British politics and in the lives of Britons. To this can be
added the growing number of prominent voices, both political and from
the media and business , which are calling for either an outright
campaign to leave the EU or at least a reshaping of the EU in such a
radical fashion that it has no chance of success. Both factors will
lend vastly greater potency to the OUT camp now than was the case in
1975.
North’s tactics before a referendum
Much of this was driven by fear, fear that a the British electorate
would not vote to come out. The consequence is that North proposes a
complex, expensive and above all time consuming schedule of
preparatory work before any referendum is held. North’s addressed the
subject under five separate heads. I comment separately on each.
Reassurance for business
North argues that because the EU is first and foremost a political
construct, business has no right to have a say in whether the UK is in
or out of the EU. I have sympathy with that view , but North
immediately capsized this position by stating:
“…business has a right to expect a predictable and stable regulatory
and trading environment, the status of which is affected by our
membership. Therefore, we need to be able to assure the business
community that, should we leave the EU, there would be no adverse
effects.
“In effect, that would mean “protecting” membership of the Single
Market – which could be achieved through EEA membership. And, as long
as that membership is assured, business has no locus in the broader
debate.”
By taking this position on the Single Market North is effectively
granting business a very large say in how we are governed, because
continued membership of the Single Market will require at the least
subscription to the four “freedoms” and the acceptance of EU laws
relating to the Single Market. That will greatly impinge upon the UK’s
sovereignty.
An alternative to the EU
North believes that we should not merely take back power from Brussels
but also stop the power regained being grabbed by Westminster. He
starts from the claim that the UK has never been a democracy. That
is true in the sense that there has never been direct democracy – that
is no more than a commonplace – but for a century before the UK was
signed up to the EEC in 1973 there was a good deal of democratic
control because the UK’s politics were national. British politicians
then could not hide behind supranational agreements such as those
governing the EU to avoid responsibility for unpopular policies or be
forced to adopt policies which were in the interest of foreign powers
and to the UK’s disadvantage simply because of Treaty arrangements.
If the UK leaves the EU utterly and our relationship with the EU
becomes the same as we have with any other foreign power British
politics will again become national not supranational. That is the
most certain way of re-democratising the UK.
What does North want? He is much taken with the Harrogate Agenda
(HA) (http://harrogateagenda.com/). This has six demands which are
similar in tone to those of the 19th century Chartists and the 17th
century Levellers before them. Here are a couple of the demands to
give a flavour of the HA:
2. local democracy: the foundation of our democracy shall be the
counties (or other local units as may be defined), which shall become
constitutional bodies exercising under the control of their peoples
all powers of legislation, taxation and administration not
specifically granted by the people to the national government;
4. all legislation subject to consent: no legislation or treaty shall
take effect without the direct consent of the majority of the people,
by positive vote if so demanded, and that no legislation or treaty
shall continue to have effect when that consent is withdrawn by the
majority of the people;
Whether or not these are practical (which I very much doubt if put
forward in this extreme form) , there is irony in the fact that North
espouses such ideas, because his proposals for a new relationship
between the UK and the EU would utterly undermine the thrust of the
HA demands for a UK entangled in an EFTA or similar arrangement
would still be subject to decisions being made by foreigners with
doubtless the willing complicity of Westminster politicians. The
British political class is not going to vanish so the only realistic
way of making them behave reasonably is to force them to operate
within a national context.
A network for dissemination
Here are North’s proposals:
“ Spreading the message is an essential part of any campaign, but
reliance on the media is not going to be sufficient. Formal and
informal networks will have to be built, some not dissimilar to direct
marketing networks. Activities should include formal training and
education, as well as more general propagandising.
Many revolutionary organisations have acquired their own newspapers,
or news magazines, as a means of better spreading the message.”
Even if all this was possible, which is very doubtful because it
would need serious money as well as willing hands, it would take far
too long to establish as an effective propaganda tool. . A referendum
if it comes will not be that far in the future. What is needed is a
simple readily understandable message such as “Are we to be masters in
our own house” repeated as often as possible through the national and
local media. With more and more politicians, mediafolk, businessmen
and various celebrities making Anti-EU noises this is not a forlorn
hope.
Agitation
North proposes a campaign of civil disobedience, including the late
payment for “Council Tax, water bills, BBC license fees and other such
fees” and visiting every “agency, every employment office, etc. and
remove all information (leaflets, brochures) not in English”. He goes
on to say that there are “A very wide range of activities is in fact
possible, many entirely risk-free and totally within the law”.
I doubt whether in these politically correct and increasingly
authoritarian times that there would be many which are “entirely risk-
free and totally within the law”. Late payment of the BBC license
could get you a criminal record; removing information leaflets not in
English would probably get you investigated for racial harassment
because there would not be much point in removing them with running a
campaign saying what you were doing and why; failing to pay many
official bills on time could result in late payment surcharges. If
civil disobedience is urged it is important that the possible
consequences are spelt out to prospective candidates for such action.
Nonetheless that is not my main concern with civil disobedience
committed in this random fashion. Civil disobedience is only effective
if it is (1) focused, (2) publicity worthy (3) does not greatly
inconvenience or disgust the general public and (4) make the
protestors look ridiculous. Leaving people to engage in acts of
civil disobedience (particularly on a local scale) as they choose will
not meet those criteria. If it is to be used, civil disobedience must
be a national act. The Poll Tax disobedience is the best example in
modern British history of such action. A single issue: we won’t pay
the tax. It was perfect because it blocked up the magistrates courts
and brought the everyday justice system to its knees.
Sovereignty and opposition to immigration are the two strongest cards
the OUT camp has to play. If it is used , civil disobedience should
be designed to focus public interest on those two issues.
A coalition of allies
North tried to make a distinction between umbrella groups (bad) and
coalitions (good). In practice the two are indistinguishable. What
determines the unity of purpose of any coalescing groups is not what
they are called but the nature of the groups and their leaders.
North’s response to being challenged
During questions from the audience I said that North’s proposals were
an excellent recipe for remaining within the EU for the reasons I have
already given. North became very animated and spoke at considerable
length to refute what I was saying. People only behave in such a
manner during debate if they feel their position is under real threat.
The kindest interpretation of North’s position is that he is acting as
a useful idiot for the Eurofederalist cause in the mistaken belief
that things can be resolved to the UK’s advantage by talking, by
being “reasonable”; the unkindest interpretation is that he is a
Eurofederalist wolf in Eurosceptic clothing attempting to undermine
the campaign to remove the UK from the grip of the EU.
Robert Henderson
Read more at
http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2013/05/10/richard-north-useful-idiot-or-europhile-wolf-in-eurosceptics-clothing/
THE COLONEL
May 11, 2013, 4:06:15 PM5/11/13
to
19 KB OF HORSESHIT REMOVED BY YOUR COLONEL.
Note: Only pussies live in europe; the real men all moved the America in
1776.
Note: Only pussies live in europe; the real men all moved the America in
1776.
True Blue
May 11, 2013, 8:34:02 PM5/11/13
to
True Blue
May 12, 2013, 7:28:22 AM5/12/13
to
North would be mortified to read your post, as he counts himself as
the most nihilist of nihilists in matters of the EU.
But as for answering your question at length, I think you're a little
hard on him:- surely that's better than fobbing you off?
He is undoubtably well-read and researched in matters relating to the
EU, but he has been his own worst enemy sometimes. He is prone to
attack the inaccuracies of fellow eurosceptics in the most abusive
manner, thus burning bridges like retreating Italians. His sometime co-
author Christopher Booker is a much more potent and measured force,
perhaps the acedemic "jewel in the crown" of euroscepticism.
the most nihilist of nihilists in matters of the EU.
But as for answering your question at length, I think you're a little
hard on him:- surely that's better than fobbing you off?
He is undoubtably well-read and researched in matters relating to the
EU, but he has been his own worst enemy sometimes. He is prone to
attack the inaccuracies of fellow eurosceptics in the most abusive
manner, thus burning bridges like retreating Italians. His sometime co-
author Christopher Booker is a much more potent and measured force,
perhaps the acedemic "jewel in the crown" of euroscepticism.
White Spirit
May 12, 2013, 3:13:46 PM5/12/13
to
On 11/05/13 21:06, THE COLONEL wrote:
> Note: Only pussies live in europe; the real men all moved the America in
> 1776.
Where did they move it to?
> Note: Only pussies live in europe; the real men all moved the America in
> 1776.
DVH
May 12, 2013, 3:20:22 PM5/12/13
to
RH
May 13, 2013, 12:40:01 AM5/13/13
to
spent over ten minutes trying to answer me and becoming more and more
agitated as he failed to do so. RH
0 new messages