RGTyler: The 95 are Right!

Bernard Jenkins, Douglas Carswell and the other 93 Conservative backbenchers are right to be upset and have every right to voice their views.

Many people have been criticising them for attacking the party leadership but the fact of the matter is that they’re just doing their job. As backbenchers it is their job to keep holding the government to account by questioning their actions and making sure  that they stick to what the country wants. And the country wants to see power repatriated from Brussels. They also want to see a stable recovery.

And the sad thing is that the leadership don’t want either of these things. Or at least they don’t look as though they do. Our current economic recovery is based on false principles. They aren’t cutting enough, fast enough, despite what the opposition says. Neither are the cuts that they are making very efficient. This has been further pressed by George Osborne announcing that he will be increasing the minimum wage, which as anyone can see would increase prices of goods and services across the board. And it doesn’t end there, Douglas Carswell has pointed out that the economy is growing without the markets and that this is something we should be concerned about. Perhaps they should look at the possibility of cutting some of our contributions to the EU to save money as well.

Perhaps this could be achieved through allowing the UK parliament to Veto EU laws, like Germany already does, so that we can cut regulations and opt out of excessive spending programs. In fact this is exactly what the 95 have suggested. Giving the UK a veto option would not only save us money but also allow us to remove laws that are fundamentally incompatible with the Common Law system that we use. It may also give us the power to opt out clauses that say we cannot trade with our prefered trade partners in America and Asia-Pacific. A veto would help us get ahead. As has been pointed out time and time again, the rest of the world is growing whilst Europe stagnates. We should be able to look out to the rest of the world and open up trade with them…

And then there’s the idea of returning to conservative principles. The global trend last year was that conservative parties did far better than socialist or social-democratic parties. The Conservatives could learn from this by returning to the principles that a large number of their core supporters have, the classical liberal, slightly whigish, view that the state should be small and the markets free. If they do this, not only will it clober UKIP, but it will also make it more distinguishable from the LibDems and the Labour party.

 

  • DuncanPT

    Very true…. But could someone provide more details of the German vetoes over EU Laws? I haven’t seen this mentioned anywhere in the coverage of the 95, even where you’d expect a degree of euro-scepticism (or euro-realism as I’d prefer it).

    I hope you’re referring to something more than their Constitutional Court and Basic Law – something more from a democratic forum and based EU laws just being bad ideas, not because they are necessarily in conflict with the constitution as such, which is a bit of a narrow view.

  • silverminer

    Pissing into the wind trying to assert “national interests” while a member of the EU. What do national interests matter to an organisation committed to destroying the nation state?

    • RGTyler

      I feel that’s a very cynical view to take. And to an extent you may be right. But I think that this years elections will bring about a big change of direction, my predictions have eurosceptics winning a sizable chunk of the vote across Europe. Which will hopefully lead to expansion of eurosceptic groups such as the ECR and European Freedom and Democracy group.

  • Bob H

    Free trade as a sovereign nation with a global outlook would no doubt increase prosperity, but unfortunately we are in the EU. There will be no renegotiation of a reformed EU. In 4 or 5 years there will be a new treaty to increase political integration within the EU. The we will have a referendum to give our consent to this treaty.

    There will be no veto of the law to assert national interests. Any repatriation of powers debate is either intended to confuse or is a protracted exercise in discovering the impossible. We will not get the agreement of the other 27 members to do this stuff. Then we might be able to have a discussion about the real issue: do we actually need the EU?

    • Geoffrey Newbury

      The UK does not need the agreement of the other 27. Repatriation of power can happen in one of two ways. 1) the UK invokes sec51 of the Treaty, which requires the EU to consider amendments to the arrangement, or 2) Parliament passes an Act which unilaterally says ‘Fuck you and the mule you rode in on”. Or words to the same effect. This just avoids the blather of faking ‘consideration of amendments’.
      There are no amendments to the EU treaty which can make the treaty anything less of what it actually is: a prescription for an unaccountable, unelected, (unelectable) european government having unaccountable imperial bureaucrat power over England.
      It has long been a tenet of English Constitutional Law that Parliament cannot bind future Parliaments. Therefore, the argument that Parliament *cannot* repeal prior Acts is invalid and inappropriate. Naturally, there will be whinging that England would be ‘breaking’ an ‘unbreakable’ treaty. It is not unbreakable: it contains a methodology for withdrawal, which should be used.

      Bravo to the 95. They need only triple their numbers (plus a few) to make it a given. They need only double their numbers to remove the europhiles from the Cabinet (including PM DC).

  • http://concretebunker.wordpress.com/ Concrete Bunker

    A Norwegian friend of mine who seemed to have a good grasp of the internal mechanism of the EU claims that nothing happens without the agreement of national governments ( civil servants) but where measures are unpopular with the electorate then the politicos can claim its all the EU’s fault. I am guessing this is why no PM is ever that keen to leave. Switzerland trades with the EU, has all the advantages, but it has more democracy. My thoughts are that this is why our political elites like the EU, they become unaccountable and can override people’s wishes more than ever and claim its not their fault.

    • silverminer

      Civil servants love regulations, it’s what they do, so they love the EU. The civil service govern the country. They’ll all still be in post after the next election, just with some clueless, new politicians to manage and on it goes.

      • RGTyler

        It’s what Douglas Carswell calls the SW1 problem… Civil Service governs our lives relatively unchecked.