Reaping what you sow, EU edition

[andrewducker]

There's a thing that political theorists refer to as "The Overton Window" -
the range of acceptable opinlooions in the whole set of possible opinions.
Politicians mostly propose opinions within that window, because they want
to be re-elected, but by talking ideas further towards their side of it
they can either widen the window or shift it in their direction.

And this is a problem that's happened to the left all over the place -
they've allowed the window to be dragged in a rightwards direction through
being afraid of a media that's largely owned by right-wing billionaires.
It's taken things like the Occupy movement to get people talking about more
left-wing ideas, and move that window a few millimetres leftwards.

And in a similar vein I blame Labour for the current situation where
vetoing our way towards the exit door of Europe has actually improved the
popularity of the Conservatives. Because when one side makes it a popular
selling point that "Europe is bad for Britain, with their silly regulations
and impositions." you have two choices - you can either come out and say
that Europe is actively good for us (and then sell that with positive
stories), or you can say "Yes, we agree that Europe has all sorts of
negatives, but we're fighting to make it suck a little less." - and by
going with the latter they yielded control of the conversation to the
Conservatives. You're saying that basically they're right, but you aren't
willing to do what's necessary to stick up for yourselves.*

Part of the problem being that it's been very handy for the UK to sign up
for things and then blame the EU for forcing us to do the very things we
agreed to. It allows politicians to do the right, but unpopular, thing
while avoiding responsibility for it in the eyes of the public. But
there's only so long you can play that game before you alienate everyone,
which is the situation we're now finding ourselves in.

What I'd like to see is a cogent case put forward _for_ our membership of
the EU. The kind of thing which a referendum would force people into. but
I doubt I'm going to get that.


*It's been a pattern for New Labour - to avoid fighting the tabloid
newpapers by standing up for things that they believe in (like, for
instance the welfare system, where they joined in the bashing of "the
workshy", while effectively doing covert good work on the side).

Comments

[gonzo21.livejournal.com]

Yeah. I was prepared to give Labour another chance under their new leadership. But they've totally failed to impress me one iota, so I'm back to considering them the same viscious cowardly stupid thuggish party that started two illegal wars and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent men women and children.

[alitheapipkin.livejournal.com]

This.

[alitheapipkin.livejournal.com]

The tabloids have fed people such a load of rubbish over EU rules and regulations that anyone is going to have a really tough time selling the general populace on the advantages. Which really sucks because they fund a lot of really great science and research is already getting screwed left, right and centre between funding cuts and new foreign workers restrictions.

[andrewducker]

They would have a tough time - but tabloids _will_ change track, if the public disagrees with them enough. And that means advertising campaigns, information out to schools, standing up in public and speaking your mind.

It's a long, painful process. But without it the tabloids just walk all over you.

[gonzo21.livejournal.com]

There needed to be some sort of apology I think. A breaking with the past, and recognition of the very bad things they did in power under Tony. I mean, Blair made us all collectively responsible for innocents being tortured. Which. Still bothers me deeply.

Ach well. At least I can always vote for the Lib Dems. Oh. Wait.

[alitheapipkin.livejournal.com]

I wonder whether enough people have the stomach for the fight though :(

[andrewhickey.livejournal.com]

Sadly, after the AV experience, I don't think a referendum *would* force anyone to make a positive case.

[feorag.livejournal.com]

Travelling around Europe as I get to do, one of the things I've noticed is that the UK always opts for the maximalist approach to any EU directive, taking it much further than is required, and then blames the EU for their own fuck up. It doesn't seem to matter which party is in power.

Don't trust referenda, they're too easily bought, and we all know full well that if put to a referendum, the population of the UK would vote enthusiastically for the death penalty for being Muslim.

[danieldwilliam.livejournal.com]

Agreed - a referendum wouldn't force anyone to make a postive case.

It might allow someone a platform to make that case. They may then chose to go down a road of "leaving the EU would destroy jobs" or "leaving the EU would allow the evil south of England Tories to destroy your region"

[andrewducker]

Point taken on it not mattering which party is in power - I think the difference is that the Conservatives are (largely) quite blatant about being anti-EU, and Labour have seemed more in favour, and I'd like "the good guys" to stand up for the right thing. I don't expect the Conservatives to do the right thing :->

And yes, I don't trust referenda either. They make me twitch.

[danieldwilliam.livejournal.com]

A shrewd observation on the Labour Party's use of Overton's Window in the EU.

The EU is an excellent vehicle for getting necessary but unpalatable things done.

I wonder if party funding helps. Harder for a large company with a special interest to fund / bribe all the politicians in the EU.

[andrewducker]

Under the current voting system you tend to get people voting anti, rather than pro. So it's in any party's best interest to stick to whatever policies piss off the least people that might ever vote for them.

[danieldwilliam.livejournal.com]

Is your lack of trust for referenda a result of acute recent experience, a general distrust of them or a result of the UK's relative lack of experience of them and poor handling of them?

Or some other reason?

[danieldwilliam.livejournal.com]

but also they can feel free to do the maximum damage to those groups who are never going to vote for them.

*sigh*

[andrewducker]

Yes.

I do not trust the general public, who are fed a diet of lies and half-true propaganda. I am fairly sure that if we put it to a vote we'd have capital punishment back tomorrow, be out of the EU, and probably lining up poor people to be shot.

Give me a country with an educated electorate who pay attention to consequences, a history of a decent voting system, and a press that's not dominated by right-wing billionaires, and I'll feel a lot happier about the idea of referenda.

[danieldwilliam.livejournal.com]

Amen to that.

I'd quite like to try referenda more at a local level. Get people used to the idea in an environment where billionaire media barons aren't playing and on matters that are too straight-forward to deal in propaganda (much).

Congestion charging for Edinburgh for example.

[a-pawson.livejournal.com]

The problem is they are now in opposition, so they have no policies. If they have any, they will not talk about them and most definitely not put any sort of detail into them. It's unfortunately what opposition parties largely tend to do until we get close to an election. Rather the Labour party will be as quiet as possible for the next 3 years because a) the government is going to become unpopular due to the recession and b) it's not easy for them to criticise the government because they were in power when the recession kicked off.

It's a shame because I neither like nor dislike Ed Milliband, because I know very little about him and even less what about what he stands for. He obviously has an opportunity to take the party in a completely new direction from where Blair/Brown did, but it would be nice to know where he is coming from and intends to go to.

[andrewducker]

We had that one. It failed. Which is fair enough, the people spoke.

I would also feel more comfortable with local referenda. Especially if they could be carried out cheaply.

But I wouldn't want to feel that the local council was avoiding taking responsibility for decisions by throwing all the tricky ones off for a referendum.

[danieldwilliam.livejournal.com]

I was thinking of it because I recalled there had been one. (I wouldn't be surprised to see it back on the agenda soon. I believe Aberdeen have moves afoot to introduce such a thing).

Cheapness is a much under valued quality in democracy. I tend to think that I'd like to see more referenda and if they were cheap we could do that. I also wonder at the use of non-binding referenda.

I hear you on the passing the buck point. I'm thinking of things where the buck isn't being passed (for example "People of Edinburgh, here is the development plan for our city for the next ten years - are you content?" or where passing the responsibility to the broader electorate on a single issue is legitimate because what is needed is the community view on what is right or wrong (for example, perhaps the law on assisted suicide).

[andrewducker]

"People of Edinburgh, here is the development plan for our city for the next ten years - are you content?"

That's a matter for re-election. If people are happy with the way things are run then they will continue to vote for the councillors, otherwise they will vote them out.

[gonzo21.livejournal.com]

And I really did think out of the potential candidates, he was the best. Seemed like he was the one who would take the party back towards the left. But the media seem to be down on him like a ton of bricks, and nothing he can do or say is right.

[zz]

i'm always annoyed that there doesn't seem to be (in the mainstream news/political discussion) a conversation about *why* the EU does the things it does, and whether it needs to.

i also don't understand why the position is always a forced march forwards to ever further integration, and that any deviation from that, rolling anything back, or at least pause for very public reflection (i.e. not a few french+germans in a closed room) is somehow bad or misguided.

i also don't see the problem with two or even several tier EU integration, for anyone involved. it all just seems like a lot of self-defeating scare mongering and "if you're not with us you're against us" arrogance.

[zz]

how did the the edinburgh congestion charge one fail?

[danieldwilliam.livejournal.com]

Arguably, but general elections are general and I might like a vote on an issue that runs longer than a term of office.

[autopope.livejournal.com]

In general, referenda are dangerous because they only happen when the government in office wants to hold one, either to validate or to destroy some policy initiative (for example, the Conservative support for the LibDem referendum on PR, which they supported because it then enabled them to campaign against it and get a definitive "no" vote on the record).

There are some constitutional systems that allow public initiatives to trigger a referendum -- see California or Switzerland, for example. Oh, and see also California's horrendous budget crisis (the people will not vote for higher taxation) or the way Switzerland disenfranchised women until very recently. All told, I don't find these convincing arguments in favour of referenda ...