Progress, For Progress's Sake Must Be Discouraged

I know it's gone, it's passed, it's happened, WE WON! but I thought I should still show Dolores Jane Umbridge's argument against the hated Alternative Vote!

I only changed a couple of words :-) and they're in [square brackets]

"Every [Prime Minister and politician] of [The United Kingdom] has brought something new to the weighty task of governing this historic [state], and that is as it should be, for without progress there will be stagnation and decay. There again, progress for progress's sake must be discouraged, for our tried and tested traditions often require no tinkering. A balance, then, between old and new, between permanence and change, between tradition and innovation because some changes will be for the better, while others will come, in the fullness of time, to be recognised as errors of judgement. Meanwhile, some old habits will be retained, and rightly so, whereas others, outmoded and outworn, must be abandoned. Let us move forward, then, into a new era of openness, effectiveness and accountability, intent on preserving what ought to be preserved, perfecting what needs to be perfected, and pruning wherever we find practices that ought to be prohibited."

If anyone does not get the titular quote then you obviously didn't read the big bit in the middle!

A Guide To Gossamer

I ran the world when men were not around,
All was calm, nought unfair
and peace was all abound.
Yet all too soon, did seem to change
When storming sky began to rage,
Those that could, and those that would
Paid homage to their Lords.

Fleeing from untimely winds
Most were lost, and at great cost,
They suffered for our sins.
Now who's to blame, for the slain,
no guiltier than we,
have lost their lives, sons and wives
And from our pain mankind we did beget.

From peccancy and hurt, new rulers did arise
And in this trope they grabbed the stolen prize,
All fell back in def'rence to new Lords.
Victory was claimed o'er those who could not fight,
Submission forced upon our grateful heads.
In lessening our minds, they lessened too our shame,
And thus man conquered us.

United in Diversity

A few months ago I started to write about Europe and the European Union. I struggled in some of my fact-finding so temporarily put it on the backburner. I return to it now looking at a much weaker European Union and a much altered view on the whole situation.

Anyone who knows about my views on Europe will not be surprised to learn that what I wrote before was a scathing diatribe on everything Europe, E.U., Eurozone and Euro.

Unfortunately, most of what I wrote is now very outdated; I think I may be coming to like the idea of a ‘United States of Europe’ (U.S.E.). However, I still proudly retain the flag of a vehement ‘E.U.sceptic’. The current model of the European Union is one which was based on the policy of slowly taking powers from member countries’ parliaments and centralising them in a European Parliament. Hardly democratic.

What the E.E.C.’s founders, the E.U.’s predecessor, wanted was to create what many had striven for over the centuries: a European Empire. “For the first time since the fall of the Roman Empire we have the opportunity to unite Europe.” Romano Prodi. This is what we are heading for with the E.U.. And Great Britain is being dragged along kicking and screaming. But why are we doing this?

We joined, we signed up later than some of the others, but we did join. Part of the problem Britain has in Europe is that we are not fully engaged in the decision making. We’re not the frontrunners pushing our agenda. Germany is, France is, so why don’t we? If we were fully involved we could sculpt Europe into something that would be more beneficial and pleasing for the public. The problem we have with being Eurosceptic is that it damages our chances of creating a Europe that does what we want.

I saw Dr. Kay Swinburne, MEP, speaking on Europe a few weeks ago and I can safely say that if our other MEPs are anywhere near as good as her, we are in safe hands in Europe. She said something that made me think and which I have unsuccessfully tried to find online so I could quote her exactly, but cannot. Her point was that the other European MEPs are fed up with Britain, ‘if you want to leave so much, leave!’ was the sentiment of what Dr. Swinburne said.

The European Union has a population of around 502 Million, compared with America’s 309 Million. Yet, the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) does not reflect the difference in population; The GDP of the E.U. in 2010 was just over £10 Trillion whereas the GDP of the U.S. was £9 Trillion. (GB’s was around 1.5 in 2010) Surely a United States of Europe would be able to increase its GDP if there were more integration, more union? 

There are fears I have with having a closer union, such as the inability to have control over what happens, what would the role of The Monarchy be, could we hold politicians accountable? But we need to be involved with the European ideal or Great Britain will be left behind.

With globalisation, global institutions and some global governance, we are being forced into the background. If we want to survive on the world’s stage and not just be a ‘bit-player’ – who’d want to play ‘2^nd Servant’ when you could play Romeo? – We need to find a way to raise our voice. Perhaps a U.S.E. would be that megaphone Britain will need.

Further integration is always a point of contention within GB, we always consider ourselves ‘different’, ‘separate’ all because of a little bit of water – the English Channel – but are we so different? It would be incredibly difficult to do, the public would detest this being done but as Harold Macmillan said: “The countries of Europe, none of them anything but second-rate powers by themselves, can, if they get together, be a power in the world equal to… the superpowers.”

Prizes are steadily worsening again as I am an unemployed student once more. This week's prize? Answer to find out...

Figures taken from The World Bank's website