The EU, Clegg, Farage: what are they good for?

I wasn’t disappointed with the Farage/Clegg debate; it gave me a chance to seriously mull the EU issue myself.

Let me start by saying this: Nigel Farage is a ridiculous man who lies to the British people everyday. It’s part of his job as leader of UKIP, a party whose base must consist primarily of drunken infants.

He likes to present himself as a beer-drinking country chap, a real Brit who finds himself appalled at the ghastly red tape imposed by Brussels. You see, this anti-establishment, ‘wild-cannon’ image suits him much better than the image of a London stockbroker who went to public school and rubbed shoulders very closely with ‘establishment’ figures. People who describe him a ‘likeable personality’ are being led up the garden path.

Nick Clegg is a man slandered by history; he saw a chance for his small, idealistic party to grasp real power for the first time in almost a century. He took that chance and became a figure of public ridicule, labelled as a Tory poodle by socialists who wish he had done more to restrict the Conservatives. But I’d rather we had slightly neo-liberal policies that a political system governed by dogmatic, tantrum throwing leaders. It’s one of the blessed things that sets us apart from our American cousins.

I didn’t watch all of the first debate, but the second was fairly interesting. Clegg was seen to be shouty and insecure, especially in the first half, but I think he calmed down towards the end. Farage clearly won over immigration and the burden it puts on our infrastructure. With regards to the amount of legislation and bureaucracy in Brussels, the winner was more unclear, although you’d expect Farage to take a lead there.

Farage railed against the competition for jobs between white working class Brits and EU immigrants. He complained that EU immigration is a good deal for the rich and wealthy, claiming that they gained submissive and grateful ‘servants’. A good cord to strike with his core supporters. Clegg couldn’t reply on national television in the way he should have: Farage can easily count himself a member of the rich and powerful, and white working class people are losing to jobs to Bulgarians because they think menial jobs beneath them.

Clegg stressed the need to maintain our ‘economic clout’ in the world; Farage said that we could trade with India, China and other emerging and/or Commonwealth countries instead, and that we needn’t be bound to an outdated, protectionist institution like the EU Customs Union.

Interesting how neither even contested the legitimacy of using ‘free trade’ as a by-word for prosperity and growth. Time was when the British left were horrified of the EU and its potential for enforcing the capitalist agenda over the wishes of trade unions and working people, but we gave up that distaste for the prospect of a left-wing agenda in Brussels. We couldn’t win an election at home, so we subscribed to a distant beaurocracy in the hope it would implement socialist. Michael Foot put it wonderfully:

“We can disagree about whether the EU has been a socialist or capitalist influence, but it is undeniable that it wields that influence without asking the people.”

The British left-wing needs to ‘grow a pair’ generally, but on this particular issue we have particularly let ourselves down. We have left Euro-scepticism to be hijacked by right-wing nutters who want to blame it for every social ill.

I personally believe that Britain can have a future in the EU; but as Clegg said, you need to commit before you can enact change.

  • Political Union must be scaled back to the common-market.
  • That common market must ensure only an absence of border tariffs, and must not include any other obligations or restrictions on worker’s rights.
  • The Euro should be destroyed as an institution.
  • An EU central bank should be formed, to provide unconditional loans to member states in times of severe financial crisis, with very low interest rates.
  • Each member state should pay into that central bank with a lump sum each year, according to that country’s GDP.
  • The central bank should provide loans to Green Energy initiatives throughout the EU.
  • The Tobin Tax should be implemented at a set level throughout the EU; this new tax should help member states pay the annual fee.
  • The European parliament should gain more members, elected from smaller constituencies, to provide a more direct democracy.
  • The European Commission should be made answerable to the European Parliament in all things.

These demands are in line with the two main challenges facing Western civilisation in the 21st century: extremes of wealth and poverty, and climate change.

A Europe-wide Tobin Tax would decrease the likelihood of mass financial migration to the US; banks would find it harder to withdraw from the whole of Europe than from a single country. The Tobin Tax would equip governments with more power to deal with social ills, as well as reducing economic inequality.

An EU central bank would be uniquely placed to provide Green Energy with the initial boost it needs to grow.

I’m sorry if you feel this was a bit long and tedious, but it’s important I say what I feel.


Reviewing Thatcher’s Legacy

Some left wing good-for-nothings like myself, would blame Thatcher for almost all of the country’s problems, and, contrary to The Telegraph, The Times, The Sunday Times, The Spectator, The Daily Mail and The Sun, they would be right.

Her total misinterpretation of human nature caused her to show dedication and reverence to an economic following which is not only ethically flawed but factually flawed.

I am of course, referring to Free Market Capitalism, the saviour of the West. She placed naive trust in the individual, and this led to the break down of British society.

She thought that government had no role in the market place, and this lead her to shut down the ‘unprofitable’ heavy industries and shove thousands of working class men into unemployment. If you look closely, their descendants have become the ‘benefit scroungers’ that are so loathed by the Tories. She singlehandedly destroyed an entire generation of the working class. She deprived them of meaningful, well paid work and pushed them onto state reliance.

If she was miffed about propping up industries which weren’t profitable then she should have at least have given the sacked miners other skills, trained them so that they could find work again. Instead she doomed them to poverty.

Not only did she destroy the workplaces of the working class, to do that she had to go through the Unions, which stood in her way.

I’ll concede that the Unions had too much power, although I reject the assertion that it was undemocratic. That was the closest democratic solution to the Marxist dream of workers’ control.

However the way that they held the country to ransom was impractical and had to change, I can understand that. I think that we need to find the line between over imposed union power and insecure workers.

The de-regulation of finance led directly to the crash of 2008, you have to be a simpleton not to see that. The get-rich quick culture in which greed was the only virtue led to the break down of society and a de-stable nation, both economically and morally.

During her government, working people were introduced to levels of insecurity, insignificance and  impoverishment unprecedented since the thirties.

Economic inequality soared and now the gap between rich and poor is ridiculously high, far more than is necessary for the ‘incentive to work hard’.

I agree with her decision to re take the Falklands, that’s pretty much it.

Under her oversight, the post-war consensus was stabbed ruthlessly to death, and the triumph of the elite was final. We will never forget her as a woman who wounded our society, the scars of which will be felt for a long time.