dogsolitude_v2 ([info]dogsolitude_v2) wrote,
@ 2008-06-16 19:22:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:civlib

Magna Carta
793 years ago yesterday, in Runnymede, King John was shoved on a boat until he signed the Magna Carta. Well, not quite. The document was sealed rather than signed, and the boat may have been apocryphal.

Clause 29 had this bit in it:

XXIX. NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land.

This was a bit of a first, as up 'til then you could be imprisoned without charge and put on trial without jury. In effect, the State could do pretty much what it like with you, peon. There was some other stuff in there, some of which is a bit strange today, but  the quotation above is the main bit which civil libertarians were talking about when the 42-day detention periuod was brought in (thanks to some vote-buying).

The Magna Carta is now being used as toilet paper in Downing Street. A spokesman for Gordon Brown said that it's unique absorbent qualities made for a superior user-experience which surpassed rivals Andrex and the one made by those bears.

In other news, Ireland actually got a referendum on the EU treaty amendments (unlike us). They've voted 'no', so we can now watch Eurocrats in Brussels try to find some way of worming it through anyway.


(Post a new comment)


[info]slick47
2008-06-16 10:10 pm UTC (link)
Another way of looking at the EU treaty would be to say that 1.5 million Irish men and women decided the fate of 400 million europeans. The big problem with the EU is that no one understands it, people know that it costs them money and it seems to be the source of a lot of red tape. People also seem to dislike the CAP quite a lot. What people don't see is what they gain from EU membership and that's the big problem. So a treaty that streamlines a lot of the processes that allow 37 nations to make decisions can be quite easily derailed because one special interest group can start piling on the pressure on just one government.

What really irritates me about Euroscepticism is that while the EU is subject to endless bashing from politicians and the press. Our membership in the WTO, the IMF, the World bank, the UN and the BIS is never subject to any scrutiny. The WTO, IMF and World Bank in particular have been responsible for the massive growth in poverty around the world since the early 1980s. But no one ever asks the right questions on any of these multinational bodies.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]dogsolitude_v2
2008-06-17 08:51 am UTC (link)
The WTO, IMF and World Bank in particular have been responsible for the massive growth in poverty around the world since the early 1980s. But no one ever asks the right questions on any of these multinational bodies

Too damned right! I seem to recall that there was a lot of capitalistic talk about the 'trickle down effect' being one of the methods by which the WTO, and the World Bank would attempt to end poverty...

Hmmm... *strokes chin*

My problem with the EU is really a lack of 'accessibility' to the likes of you and I, and the general 'distance' between Brussels and Joe le Public. I'm not keen on centralisation of power, as you may have guessed.

It will really start working when we start making use of our Euro MPs and keeping tabs on what's going on and generally getting involved.

These are our guys. Spot the Bill Clinton lookalike...

The improvements in trade between EU members has improved the quality of our lives immensely. Remember the days when Lindt chocolate was a luxury item? Or the fact that it was almost impossible to get a drinkable bottle of wine in a pub before 1992? And the Charter of Rights effectively bans capital punishment in the EU, enshrines rights to liberty, privacy and suchlike. This is a damned good thing.

However, as every management textbook says: if you want people to accept change you must consult them and keep them informed during the decision-making process. In fact, a while back I wrote the the BBC berating them for not covering the treaty and the effects of the amendments properly.

As you correctly point out: no-one understands the EU. It's remote, inaccessible and a bit mysterious. And you are quite right that this is part of the problem. The media have a lot to answer for in this respect, and what's made things worse was the fact that a lot of people knew that this treaty was going to be passed 'over their heads', even though many didn't know what was in it.

This leads to feelings of alienation amongst the public, and that somewhat spooky feeling that decisions are being made behind closed doors which affect our lives.

I fully accept that the gov isn't entirely to blame for this relationship problem, but until it's sorted out there's going to be a lot of discomfort about Europe.

And until we fully understand what's going on, I don't think it would be a good idea to push for anything which would increase the perceived powers of Brussels.

Yep, this will slow things down (like the Irish vote did), but I'd far rather have a fully-informed public involved in decisions of a borderline-constitutional nature, and therefore shaping a Europe which meets the needs of the UK population.

In a nutshell I sort of agree with you, basically.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…