Re: [A-List] EU Struggles: EU Constitution

["annewilliamson" <annewilliamson@xxxxxxx>]

Oh, Michael, thanks for a delicious read, which I have
saved to my "Beastiary" file.  Actually, I am concerned
about an EU ruled by bureaucrats, and don't think it
will work over time.  But I am an outsider looking in,
and am hardly up to snuff on all details - so I set my
task in best understanding the arguments, pro and con.
of those who are Europeans.  Thanks again for the
expose on Rees-Mogg about whom my feelings have
always been very, very mixed even without the support
of your post :-).  The old bugger was certainly gung-ho
for Bush and the Iraqi attack, which sickened me and
about which I squealed a lot in sound money circles. -A.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Keaney" <michael.keaney@xxxxxx>
To: <a-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 7:01 AM
Subject: Re: [A-List] EU Struggles: EU Constitution


> William Rees-Mogg intones:
>
> Instead of being self-governed, all the nations of Europe would be
governed
> by the agencies of the Union, which are primarily bureaucratic. There is
no
> parallel to this in British history; it is perhaps closest to the process
by
> which the United Kingdom itself was created, and Scotland and Ireland lost
> their own parliaments. That has had to be reversed.
>
> ------
>
> An intriguing and revealing parallel indeed. That the very foundation of
the
> "United Kingdom" should be on a par with the apparently objectionable and
> wholly undemocratic process that is European integration. Does this mean
> Moggers would support independence for Scotland, Wales and England, whilst
> reunifying Ireland? Probably not.
>
> That anyone should learn lessons in "democracy" from Rees-Mogg of all
people
> is rich. Do an archive search and you will find copious references to his
> role as one of the leading protagonists of the "Thatcher gang" that
spanned
> the military, MI5, MI6, the judiciary, the City and academia during the
> 1970s as it worked to undermine and overthrow the democratically elected
> government of Harold Wilson. Rees-Mogg, then editor of the Times, played a
> key role in planting a voluminous quantity of smears and other snippets
> calculated to do maximum damage to the "communist cell at Number 10".
During
> the 1980s, as vice-chairman of the BBC Board of Governors, he was the
> insider who implemented the Tebbit agenda by forcing the resignation of
> Alasdair Milne as Director General via such tactics as settling out of
court
> with Neil Hamilton and Gerald Howarth over the latter two's reported
> involvement in far right politics during the 1970s. It is well known that
> Howarth, in particular, was closely involved with George Kennedy Young's
> faction in the Monday Club, a bunch of racist empire loyalists only
recently
> disaffiliated from the Conservative Party by a stressed Iain Duncan Smith.
> Rees-Mogg is also part of that peculiarly English institution, the
"leading
> Catholic layperson", alongside such other democratic notables as The Duke
of
> Norfolk.
>
> When he's not doing his best to further punk Thatcherism, "Lord" Rees-Mogg
> writes execrable newspaper columns and books in which he opines
> magisterially on what will come to pass, as a kind of cross between Alvin
> Toffler and Nostradamus. Unlike either of these sages, however, Rees-Mogg
is
> notable for a remarkable degree of consistency -- his inability to get
> anything right. Not unlike his reading of the past, in fact.
>
> Mystic Mogg continues:
>
> A common policy over Iraq would have been anti-American, and would have
made
> it impossible for Britain to support the United States action.
>
> -----
>
> Gosh! How awful! Never mind the fact that opinion polls consistently
showed
> a majority against military action prior to its commencement. But, as we
> have seen, Rees-Mogg's dedication to "democracy" is highly selective and
> restricted to his equation of that word with a very particular notion of
> "Britishness".
>
> The great sage continues:
>
> A group of young people, of all parties and views on Europe, have been
> talking to each other. They were all too young to have had a vote when
> Britain last held a referendum on Europe. Half of them were not born at
that
> time. They feel that it is their future which is being determined. One of
> them is my youngest daughter, Annunziata, who is the Editor of the
European
> Journal. They have set up a new website: www.trustthepeople.org to fight
for
> a constitutional referendum.
>
> -------
>
> How sweet. Annunziata is the sister of Jacob, a few years ago profiled as
> "Britain's cleverest young man". A former holder of this dubious title was
> Peter Jay who, as economics editor of the Times under the editorship of
> Rees-Mogg, used the pages of that organ to forecast the breakdown of law
and
> order and the rise of a "strong man" to take control. Jay has since become
> economics editor of the BBC, thanks to the patronage of former Director
> General John Birt, with whom he used to write articles for The Times back
in
> the 1970s about how news reporting could be improved via their philosophy
of
> a "mission to explain", which was put into practice at London Weekend
> Television by Jay, Birt and others during the 1970s and 80s. Birt himself
> was appointed Director General of the BBC in succession to Michael
Checkland
> (a stopgap after Milne) with the blessing of Rees-Mogg, whose own ability
to
> "trust the people" seems to have bloomed very late in life.
>
> Speaking personally, I was too young to vote in 1979. I would love the
> chance to be able to correct that aberration and reverse the damage
> inflicted by Rees-Mogg's superheroine. As list Co-Moderator, being in the
> company of all you young A-listers discussing such issues on a regular
> basis, I am at least as well qualified under Rees-Mogg's criteria to be
> granted this wish. And I am sure that the A-list achieves a far greater
> circulation and readership than the lavishly funded, pisspoor europhobia
of
> the European Journal.
>
> He continues:
>
> >We need to look at this debate from all points of view. So far, the BBC
and
> the Government have failed to discharge their public duty. The BBC has not
> understood the historic nature of the choice. The Government has not even
> tried to create a coherent public view of the constitutional issues. The
BBC
> governors should ask the board of management to mount a full-scale debate
on
> an impartial basis.
>
> -----
>
> This is exactly the sort of rationale used by Rees-Mogg to force BBC
> management to cave into the libel action launched by Hamilton and Howarth
in
> response to the Panorama documentary, "Maggie's Militant Tendency", in
which
> these two, among several others, were identified as poster boys for the
far
> right courtesy of well-documented flirtations with the Monday Club, Tory
> Action and the National Front, among other overtly racist organisations.
The
> libel action itself was financed by "Sir" James Goldsmith, another
> well-known champion of "democracy". Rees-Mogg impressed upon the governors
> (among whom was chairman Stuart Young, brother of "Lord" David Young,
> contemporaneously a Thatcherite cabinet minister) to "discharge their
public
> duty" by ultimately discharging Milne to make way for Birt.
>
> Mystic Mogg concludes:
>
> The nation is entitled to decide its own future, and to defend its own
> democracy; the new European constitution itself cannot prosper without
> public consent and  democratic authenticity. In Britain we are accustomed
to
> being democratic; we expect to hold our governments to account and to
> dismiss them when they fail. That was what happened to Chamberlain in
1940.
>
> An integrated and centralised Europe, run by bureaucrats, would in any
case
> be a weak form of government; it would lack the strong basis of public
> support. But if it were to be created, against the wishes of the British
> people, the British would not support it in times of crisis, such as come
to
> all governments, sooner or later. Tony Blair should understand this: the
> British people will not be hijacked into a bureaucratic European
superstate.
>
> ------
>
> Bullshit. There is no such thing as a "British nation", there is no such
> thing as "the British people", etc. As the noble lord admits, Britain
itself
> rests upon deeply suspect foundations, and is composed of a number of
> nations and peoples whose "Britishness" is a result of their geography and
> statehood. The entire argument rests upon an imperial fantasy borne of a
> time when such fantasies were temporarily supportable via reference to the
> existence of an actual empire. Its lingering legacy is a europhobia borne
of
> outdated inter-imperialist rivalry of yore. This article is a cry for help
> from a dying tendency within British capitalism that was once part of the
> dominant strain. As such it was responsible for allowing "the British
> people" to be hijacked by the bureaucratic fiat of the US Treasury
> Department via its IMF subsidiary in 1976. Therefore the sooner it is put
> out of its misery the better for all.
>
> Michael Keaney
>
>
>
>
>