People always say to me “You can’t be interested in politics, you’re not even old enough to have lived through any!” all the time. This is one of the problems with our society at the moment. People think that you cannot have your own political view unless you have either studied a politics course at university or are actively involved in the political system.
This problem intensifies when your views are not mainstream (Where mainstream means that you do not support one of the parties currently in government). I for one am an anarchist, and people often think that an anarchist is someone like Guy Fawkes who wants to blow up government. This could not be further from the truth. The definition is simply this:
Anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates stateless societies often defined as self-governed voluntary institutions, but that several authors have defined as more specific institutions based on non-hierarchical free associations. Anarchism holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful.
Now obviously there can be people who take this philosophy into their own hands and become extremists. But this happens with any philosophy, for example take the recent Greenpeace activists who proved they were terrorists when stupidly trying to board a russian oil rig illegally.
Holding the state to its actions is a key view of mine, and which I think should be second nature to everyone. Yet in this modern democratic world, nobody seems to even want to think this way. In fact, when things go wrong the only ‘right’ solution, people say, is for there to be more government, and more government spending. Yet government is bureaucratic, not value for money, makes many decisions without public consent (Because they think they know what is best for us) and takes money from people by holding a gun in their face.
A government can be compared to the NHS, which is also all of the things I stated above. Yet whenever I list problems with the health service in the UK, people always shout back at me “…but the solution is simple, the NHS should increase its budget and expand”. Once I try to explain that the opposite is true, and that it would perform more efficiently and effectively with decentralised bodies (possibly county level) which can compete against each other and that GP services should be privatised people look at me as though I hate the NHS and all the hard work its employees do on a daily basis (Dan Hannan has also noticed this phenomenon). IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH NHS EMPLOYEES; it has everything to do with how the NHS is great at wasting money, not being accountable and being overly bureaucratic (and here).
However, things are looking up for my point of view. Here is what a recent YouGov report had to say:
YouGov’s 2013 ‘Healthcare Choices: NHS versus Private report’ shows the public would welcome the private sector taking a greater role in the provision of their health services. Also, (62%),believe the private sector has a role to play in reducing NHS waiting lists, with just over one in eight (13%) thinking it should not.
Hallelujah!! Now people just need to apply this way of thinking to government itself. As I have mentioned previously in this blog, socialism is the philosophy of failure and is the natural course of all governments around the world. People need to wake up and realise that less is more in terms of government.
The word nationalist is often thrown about when a europhile argues against those who oppose political union in europe. In fact, when the french, dutch and irish had referendums and all rejected the lisbon treaty, some MEP’s called the results nationalist, as to mean being nationalist is something bad!
A nationalist is someone who believes in democracy, who believes in one-man-one-vote and believes that government should be carried out by and for the people. However, he also raises the question: what people?
Representative government works best within a population whose members feel enough in common with one another to accept government from each other’s hands. After all, a policy functions best when there is a shared identity.
The unelected president of the European Commission, Jose Barroso, has argued that nation states are dangerous precisely because they are excessively democratic:
Governments are not always right. If governments were always right we would not have the situation that we have today. Decisions taken by the most democratic institutions in the world are very often wrong.
The EU now treats public opinion as an obsticle to be overcome rather than a reason to change direction.
Marxists used to contend that, if only the workers were in full possession of the facts, and free rationally to advance their own interests, they would vote for socialist parties, but in practice they were led astray by bourgeois interests. It was therefore necessary for good communists to act in the real interests of the majority.
This is the same argument the eurocrats support. Because they think people are unable to make an unclouded decision, eurocrats are entitled to disregard their desires in pursuit of their own preferences.
Even Tony Blair thought this:
The British people are sensible enough to know that, even if they have a certain prejudice about Europe, they don’t expect their government necessarily to share or act upon it.
And finally, the EU has so much power, that to save the dwindling euro currency in 2011, it effectively halted democracy in italy and greece ‘for their own good’ through brussels appointed apparatchiks.
A nationalist, is someone who wants what is best for his country, through democracy. Not someone who thinks they know what is right for everyone.
The fact is, if the EU were a country applying to join itself, it would be rejected on the grounds of being insufficiently democratic by its own rules.
ps. please read Dan Hannan’s book:
A Doomed Marriage: Britain and Europe
As you will come to learn, I am a massive Daniel Hannan fan. His latest Telegraph article is a passage from his new book: How We Invented Freedom & Why It Matters.
He rightly singles out the defining problem of the way the EU functions: Its ability to ignore the rule book.
Shall I tell you the worst thing about the EU? It’s not the waste or the corruption or the Michelin-starred lifestyles of its leaders. It’s not the contempt for voters or the readiness to swat referendum results aside. It’s not the way that multi-nationals and NGOs and all manner of corporate interests are privileged over consumers. It’s not the pettifogging rules that plague small employers. It’s not the Common Agricultural Policy or the Common Fisheries Policy. It’s not the anti-Britishness or the anti-Americanism. It’s not even the way in which the euro is inflicting preventable poverty on tens of millions of southern Europeans.
No, it’s something more objectionable than any of these things – and something which, bizarrely, doesn’t exercise us nearly as much as it should. Put simply, it’s this: the EU makes up the rules as it goes along.
He goes on to give many examples of why this is the case. One of the best involves Article 125 of the EU treaty “The Union shall not be liable for, or assume the commitments of, central governments, regional, local or other public authorities, other bodies governed by public law, or public undertakings of any Member State.” Thus, every single euro-bailout was illegal. Christine Lagarde admitted: “We violated all the rules because we wanted to close ranks and really rescue the euro zone. The Treaty of Lisbon was very straightforward. No bailouts.”
If the EU is proud of bending the rules, how can it be trusted?