Power Lost To Westminster?

[Chinahand]

My simplistic view of the EU is that they are creating a core bedrock of common laws throughout Europe. This will make intercountry relations, communications, trade etc simpler. You could say its an attempt to standardize the 'Paperwork' for all of the EU - the only trouble with this is that they are not only standardizing it, but also creating it - so for 'Paperwork'-lite countries there is an increase in rules, regulations and form filling.

 

Getting the balance right isn't easy and at the moment I would say the feeling all over Europe is that Euro-regulation is going over the top. Maybe true, but that must be put in the context of vastly simpler relations throughout Europe.

[triskelion]

Getting the balance right isn't easy and at the moment I would say the feeling all over Europe is that Euro-regulation is going over the top. Maybe true, but that must be put in the context of vastly simpler relations throughout Europe.

People don't really appreciate that though. I remember travelling through Germany and Belgium by train, and some English people who were going the same way just thought the Belgians were stupid for not checking their passports. All they see are the 'More powers lost to Brussels' and 'xx% of legislation in the UK comes from the EU.'

[VinnieK]

Getting the balance right isn't easy and at the moment I would say the feeling all over Europe is that Euro-regulation is going over the top. Maybe true, but that must be put in the context of vastly simpler relations throughout Europe.

 

I am all for opening trade throughout Europe, but surely this can be achieved without much of the baggage the EU comes with such as the european central bank, or the common agricultural and fisheries policies, or even a fair proportion of the regulatory framework.

 

I don't see it as "surrendering power to Brussels" or what have you, I just don't place much faith in big transnational organizations like the EU. Federations are great when you're all united in a common goal (such as the U.S. Government, or Germany), but when individual national aspirations are thrown into the pot, the tendency is towards mischief and stagnation.

[triskelion]

Could the farming and fishing industries survive in a competitive environment? Fishing technology is too good and the margins too small for it to be sustained. The problems with farming (eg. If prices go up, people cry rip-off, ignorant of the forces at work) are miriad.

 

For example, if the UK we to increase farm (or fishing) subsidies by say, 30%, that would swiftly boost the margins of her producers. With the free trade area, UK farmers and fishermen would then be able to undercut their European rivals to a massive degree. Of course, their Government's would be forced to respond ad infinium.

[laughingcavalier]

What rubbish. What is so bad about the disintegration of national identities as we know them? Most of the European nation states are very old political structures that often have scant political, social or economic relevance. Over the existance of the "big, bad EU," regional identity in Europe has undergone a massive resurgence. You only have to look at the Scottish, Welsh, Catalans, Bretons, Cornish, Flemish, the Basque, Flanders, the Walloons, the many and varied peoples of the Former Yugoslavia to see that the EU is not the homogenising force you claim it to be.

 

Your post is a load of tiresome fatalism, and it would not surprise me at all if you were a member of our local laughable nationalist party.

 

 

I assume triskelon is a manual worker. By his ignorant answer he actually reinforces the proposition . The problem with armchair experts, (is he a policeman?) is that they are full of shit when scrutinesed. To assume that I belong to a local political party is comical. Please do not comment on what you have no knowledge although I understand that may be difficult.

[triskelion]

Please do not reply to my posts unless you plan to respond to my arguments.

 

I know it must be difficult to deal with challenges to your imaginary view of the European Union. Life's full of these little disappointments, isn't it?

[Cronky]

The House of Mannanan has an exhibition about Radio Caroline. There's some comment on the display about the constitutional relationship with the UK

 

I like the bit:

 

. . . The relationship is kept deliberately vague at the convenience of both countries . . .

 

The display also describes how an 'Order in Council' was imposed on the Isle of Man by a Labour Government that was determined to retain state control of the media.

 

It's a well written display by someone who knows their subject!

[Skeddan]

. . . The relationship is kept deliberately vague at the convenience of both countries . . .

True that the relationship is kept deliberately vague, and I can see that would be convenient for the UK, but but is it justifiable that people in IoM are kept in the dark about this? In what sense is it convenient for the Manx public to remain ignorant about the extent of the powers held by people in Westminster who are not democratically accountable to the Manx electorate?

 

Accountability and transparency in govt affairs are basic to democracy - how then is this obscurity a good thing for IoM? If anything, it is by remaining ignorant about this relationship that power is lost to Westminster.

[Cronky]

Accountability and transparency in govt affairs are basic to democracy - how then is this obscurity a good thing for IoM? If anything, it is by remaining ignorant about this relationship that power is lost to Westminster.

 

I quite agree and, with all the changes going on in the UK, it would be a lot more comforting if we knew just where we stood on lot of issues.

[Max Power]

The obscurity is only good for Westminster I would have thought. We lack punching power when it comes to a straight fight, as was probably the case with Radio Caroline in 1968. We probably had better politicians in those days but could they really take a stand against the UK Government and win? Any small victory would probably cost us dearly in the long run!

[Skeddan]

The obscurity is only good for Westminster I would have thought. We lack punching power when it comes to a straight fight, as was probably the case with Radio Caroline in 1968. We probably had better politicians in those days but could they really take a stand against the UK Government and win? Any small victory would probably cost us dearly in the long run!

Max Power - the argument seems to be better to not confront Westminster because it will only end up by proving IoM cannot win if it takes a stand, so better to cave in (and pretend this is 'voluntary' so preserve the illusion of autonomy).

 

Maybe the fear is that this might expose that IoM is in as weak a position as the Chagos Islands - with Westminster having virtually unlimited power. However things have moved on since 1968 - and Westminster has to comply with European Convention on Human Rights (see Jeffrey Jowell's argument of the relevance to Crown Dependencies).

 

Does it look good for the UK Govt (promoters of 'Freedom and Democracy') to be revealed to retain undemocratic dictatorial powers over IoM? (If so there would be the same justification for unilateral declaration of independence as the Americans had in 1776). It would be more inconvenient for the UK to have this revealed than it would be for IoM.

 

That is 'worst case scenario'. However there are other possibilities - and clarifying the relationship might show that Westminster's powers are far more limited than might be supposed, and also show that a stand could successfully be taken against the UK Govt. The obscurity encourages IoM to 'cave in' rather than take a stand where it could. The result is a kind of defeatism and self-fulfilling view that Westminster will always have the upper hand.

 

(And of course Westminster does have the upper hand so long as IoM doesn't know where it stands).

[Max Power]

The obscurity is only good for Westminster I would have thought. We lack punching power when it comes to a straight fight, as was probably the case with Radio Caroline in 1968. We probably had better politicians in those days but could they really take a stand against the UK Government and win? Any small victory would probably cost us dearly in the long run!

Max Power - the argument seems to be better to not confront Westminster because it will only end up by proving IoM cannot win if it takes a stand, so better to cave in (and pretend this is 'voluntary' so preserve the illusion of autonomy).

 

Maybe the fear is that this might expose that IoM is in as weak a position as the Chagos Islands - with Westminster having virtually unlimited power. However things have moved on since 1968 - and Westminster has to comply with European Convention on Human Rights (see Jeffrey Jowell's argument of the relevance to Crown Dependencies).

 

Does it look good for the UK Govt (promoters of 'Freedom and Democracy') to be revealed to retain undemocratic dictatorial powers over IoM? (If so there would be the same justification for unilateral declaration of independence as the Americans had in 1776). It would be more inconvenient for the UK to have this revealed than it would be for IoM.

 

That is 'worst case scenario'. However there are other possibilities - and clarifying the relationship might show that Westminster's powers are far more limited than might be supposed, and also show that a stand could successfully be taken against the UK Govt. The obscurity encourages IoM to 'cave in' rather than take a stand where it could. The result is a kind of defeatism and self-fulfilling view that Westminster will always have the upper hand.

 

(And of course Westminster does have the upper hand so long as IoM doesn't know where it stands).

 

I tend to agree completely, but what I was trying to point out is that I don't think we have politicians who are willing or perhaps able to see any conflict through to a satisfactory conclusion.

 

While this is the case all we can do is cave in gracefully to every piece of legislation thrown our way.

 

Like you I think that if we clarified our position and flexed our muscles, we may find that we are at liberty to do a lot more for ourselves and not adopt legislation and culture that is of no use to us or worse!

[Skeddan]

That's maybe the direction Manx politics has taken - perhaps the idea is settled that more is achieved by subservience to Westminster than by confrontation. The problem I have with this is that this shouldn't be characterised as 'confrontation'. If there is a legal and constitutional right to say 'no' to something, then what blame can attach for exercising that right if it is in the best interests of the people of IoM? IoM may thus be run on the basis of fear of a paper tiger (i.e. imagined powers Westminster do not have in actuality).

 

The basic point this leads to is that clarity about the relationship is something which is absolutely essential to effective government in IoM, and a pre-requisite for serving the interests of the Manx electorate.

 

BTW - I don't agree that it all depends on the ability of politicians. If it were shown beyond doubt that Westminster's powers were only very limited, then the subservient 'cave in gracefully' option would be seen as simply bending over backwards.

[triskelion]

This is all baseless supposition. "Probably had better politicians" in the sixties? What are you basing that on? Where is your expertise in Manx political history or its political system and Governmental structure? What great things did these politicians achieve? What makes a great politician? Would this be the same ones that outlawed appeals to the European Court of Human Rights just so they could keep birching? Or the ones that maintained a strictly 'No Gays' policy? Or the ones that stood helplessly by as the Island tumbled into deep depression insisting we needed to boost the tourist industry (contrast that with the policies of the last 20 years which have seen uninterrupted growth)? Come of it.

 

"Subservience to Westminster" ? What rubbish. Skedden why do you insist on arguing purely on the basis of obscure technicalities? No one in Westminster cares what the Island does so long as it doesn't do anything too noticeable, (like impose martial law or start some deliberate persecution) which holds true for any number of other places. The only example in early modern and modern Manx history of legislation being imposed on the Island from the UK Government and Parliament is a mere telegraphy act. When where these big confrontations with Westminster? They never happened.

 

Regardless of any technical powers over the Island, UK powers to legislate for the Island are effectively an irrelevance. Why would they care? If the Island was clearly being oppressed there might actually be a debate here, but you are manufactuering one by placing undue weight to things that have long faded into the obscurity you seem so determined to elevate them from.

 

Almost all these laws that the Isle of Man adopts that are similar to the UK are being done in most other places of comparable culture, but Manx people only seem to be able to see as far as England. Like the banning of smoking in enclosed public and work spaces was claimed to be 'copying the other Island' (How provincial is that attitude?) even though England was in fact one of the last Western regional areas to adopt such legislation.

[Sebrof]

I don't see it as "surrendering power to Brussels" or what have you, I just don't place much faith in big transnational organizations like the EU. Federations are great when you're all united in a common goal (such as the U.S. Government, or Germany), but when individual national aspirations are thrown into the pot, the tendency is towards mischief and stagnation.

 

Much better to be regulated by small, local governments, which are responsive to local needs, and can be trusted to make wise decisions for the good of the people. Like, er, ... sorry, I'll rethink that.