Only a couple of days ago Enrico Letta, the Italian Prime Minister, was interviewed by the Guardian. Letta, an avowed Europhile, is of the opinion that ‘populism’ within the European Union must be fought ‘tooth and nail’ (I paraphrase); and that European citizens have to feel they are being represented by Europe.
According to Wikipedia ‘populism’ is a political doctrine where one sides with “the people” against “the elites”; continuing that the terms populist and populism are also often used as pejoratives by political parties and politicians against their opponents who claim that they are merely only empathising with the public, (usually through rhetoric or ‘unrealistic’ proposals) to increase their appeal across the political spectrum. (Farage et all to please take note).
With what appears to be a rising of populism and populist parties within the European Union, Letta maintains that European citizens have to feel they are being represented. Letta’s idea that the people of the European Union can be ‘represented’ in Europe when the elites are, in fact, telling them what they must do, beggars belief – but I digress.
The European Union is generally presented to us as ‘the evil’ where our country is concerned, especially in relation to the ‘cost’ of our membership and the onus said costs put on the business community. An example of this scenario is the recent outpourings of Matthew Elliot,
CEO Clown of Business for Britain. That Richard North, EUReferendum; and Autonomous Mind (linked to by Richard North) have ‘torn to shreds’ Elliott’s outpouring means that further comment from me would be superfluous.
However, picking up on something mentioned by Richard North is the subject of global governance. From his post:
But what is coming more and more into high profile is the increasing globalisation of regulation……. Leaving the EU is going to afford us very little regulatory relief – at least in the short to medium term………What really matters, especially when the lack of sovereignty is seen to be harmful to our national interest, is who runs Britain – our own governments, Brussels, or beyond……..When it comes to global governance, divesting ourselves of EU control allows us to resume our seats at the real top tables, at present occupied by EU officials. Then, when we do implement offshore regulation – as, indeed we will always have to – we will know where it came from and that we had an opportunity of rejecting it when it was not in our national interest.
The important words in that extract when considering sovereignty are: who runs Britain, global governance and resuming our seats at the many top tables that exist; coupled with the ability of rejection. Of course there are those, among which is this blog, that believe those who should run Britain are the people of Britain; hence the requirement for the adoption of the 6 Demands.
Returning to the question of global governance, it has been pointed out, both here and elsewhere, that nations are subject to ‘soft-law’ which is handed down to them by UN organisations (eg UNECE) for implementation by national governments. It is logical therefore to query just who, or what, is behind organisations such as UNECE – if anyone.
It was interesting then to discover that a Regional Consultation entitled “Inclusive and Sustainable Development: Perspectives from Europe and Central Asia on the Post-2015 Development Agenda” is to be held on 7 and 8 November 2013 in Istanbul, Turkey. The high-level event will be hosted by the Ministry of Development of Turkey and co-organized by the Regional Coordination Mechanism for Europe and Central Asia, which is chaired by UNECE, and the regional United Nations Development Group. When looking at the agenda and reading the ‘advocacy paper’, one can be forgiven for asking just who the hell is Sven Alkalaj and Cihan Sultanoglu – and perhaps more pertinent, who the hell has heard of them? When one reads that one of the aims is to change consumption patterns on the basis that in Europe, the affluence of the majority of the population has moved them beyond consumption patterns dictated by need alone, and beyond what is consistent with intra and intergenerational environmental sustainability, then we surely have entered an area that can only have sinister overtones.
And we think that we are governed by Westminster – with a little help from Brussels? That the rhetoric of the boy Farage, as contained in his Telegraph ‘interview’ - or that of any other politician – is important? Readers are reminded that the url of the Post-2015 Development Agenda contains the words: ‘world we want'; and one has to ask just who is this ‘we’? From the home page it will be seen that the World We Want is a platform created by the United Nations and civil society to amplify people’s voices in the process of building a global agenda for sustainable development. One can, perhaps, be forgiven for believing that that statement contains a typographical error in that the word ‘nullify’ was intended, rather than ‘amplify’.
If we the people are those that should run Britain, then it becomes even more important that we reclaim that sovereignty that has been taken from us by our political class; so that when we are required to implement what Richard North terms ‘off-shore regulation’ it is done knowing that ultimately we can reject it if we so decide.