You remember the one where Ritchie said that it was anti-democratic to, well, in his words:
That is the aim of the December 2011 agreement on the future economic management of Europe which effectively bans deficit funding even though this is the only known and proven mechanism for ending recessions. In effect the neoliberal leadership of Europe is as a result seeking to end democratic choice and the role of government in the management of the economy henceforth – guaranteed by international law that will over-write local choice. The only option that will legally be offered to electorates henceforth will be a right wing one. No other option will be allowed, by law.
So I pointed out in the comments that:
They’re banning structural deficits, not cyclical ones. Keynesian demand management is still an option.
And was told that:
They’re banning cyclical deficits too – read what it says
They’re limited to 3% – an impossible and utterly unachievable goal since deficits are the legacy of other economic actions beyond government control but for which government will be punished if it happens – reinforcing counter cyclical behaviour and deliberately designed to ensure the risk of running a deficit is too high to take
To which I pointed out that:
Greater than 3% will be allowable if a majority vote to allow it.
They’ve not banned it at all, they’ve put a constraint on it.
To get the answer that:
And as you well know – that means it’s banned
All you’re doing is supporting the conceit
And the removal of democratic powers
Which si all I would expect of you – since you’re fundamentally opposed to political freedom
At which point I said that:
Governments voting on something is the removal of democratic powers and political freedom?
Seriously?
Which brought the response:
Now I thought you guys thought the EU undemocratic?
Not now, apparently.
Why the change of heart?
But you miss the point – is passing a law to deny the electorate choice democratic?
To which I said:
“But you miss the point – is passing a law to deny the electorate choice democratic?”
Like passing “legally binding” targets for CO2 reduction?
Which ends with:
Which undoubtedly do not bind as this is meant to
But as ever you nitpick as the certain pedant you are – picking an issue to argue on where the legislation is based on unambiguous science (global warming) to object to and yet supporting legislation based on the faux social science of neoliberalism – which is undoubtedly false
You really do have a knack for backing the wrong horses, don’t you?
Which is why normal blog policy on your comments will now resume
So, I’m banned again. For, I guess, pointing out that law binding governments is just fine when Ritchie agrees with the binding and not just fine when he doesn’t.And what’s wrong with being a pedant when it’s political control over our lives that is being discussed?
Or something.
Anyway, it’s pendant you fool.
18 responses so far ↓
1 Jock // Jan 2, 2012 at 9:37 pm
“you’re fundamentally opposed to political freedom”
A badge of honour, sirrah, and certainly better than being fundamentally opposed to freedom itself as Ritchie is.
2 Grumpy Old Man // Jan 2, 2012 at 10:25 pm
Pendant. hanging downward, a light designed to hang from the ceiling, a short rope used for attaching tackles.
Pedant : a person excessively concerned with minor details or the display of academic learning.
Ritchie 1 tim 0 (og) extra time being played.
COME ON YOU TIMS!!
3 Grumpy Old Man // Jan 2, 2012 at 10:27 pm
It’s Utd v Blackburn all over again.
4 Frances Coppola // Jan 2, 2012 at 10:42 pm
The 3% limit itself is not the issue, because as you pointed out, Tim, it can be overridden by a qualified majority – and therefore inevitably will be. Really it is simply a restatement of the (flouted) limits in the Stupidity and Gall Pact.
The real attack on democracy is in the surveillance of national budgets by Eurocrats, the provision for Brussels to insist that “unacceptable” national budgets are changed, and the penalties for non-compliance. All of these form part of the provisions of the European Semester, which dates back to January 2011: http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/m11_14.en.pdf .
The European Semester was fully adopted in the October deal, as I noted here http://coppolacomment.blogspot.com/2011/10/eurozone-unspoken-issues.html
The new fiscal compact simply confirms this agreement.
It’s a pity Murphy missed this. Surveillance of Greece finances is now in place despite being fiercely opposed by the Greek people, and Irish government finances have been supervised by Eurocrats for quite a while. There are proposals for a system of fines for non-compliant governments, and countries in “deficit reduction programmes” (that’s Greece and Portugal, at the moment) will have their budgets directly controlled by Brussels.
The policy itself is stupid enough, and I have some sympathy for Murphy’s point of view – attempting to balance the budget when the country is in deep recession is madness. But it’s the way they are planning to enforce it that is the real issue. The Eurozone is supposed to be a coalition of nation states. These proposals actually make it a Brussels dictatorship.
5 Frances Coppola // Jan 2, 2012 at 10:43 pm
Oh, and may I welcome you once more to the outer darkness. I am, of course, a permanent resident.
6 Bruce // Jan 2, 2012 at 10:44 pm
GOM – look at the Vainglory section on the right.
7 Dennis the Peasant // Jan 2, 2012 at 11:34 pm
A fine way to start the new year! My congratulations, sir.
8 Wat Dabney // Jan 2, 2012 at 11:54 pm
Grumpy,
Search the front page for “pendant.”
9 Philip Scott Thomas // Jan 2, 2012 at 11:54 pm
I love it when the old ‘pendant’ joke gets trotted out. Someone always misses it.
10 Pat // Jan 3, 2012 at 12:23 am
Mr Murphy’s point seems always to be that the common man can have more- and that someone else (perhaps “the rich”) should pay for it.
Some chance”!
11 diogenes // Jan 3, 2012 at 12:29 am
I think the key to any utterance of the Murph-meister is to try to deduce what he means by “neo-liberal”. It is a constantly shifting variable that seems to equate to whatever he disagrees with at the moment. The following day, it will be something totally different. One day Karl Marx is neo-liberal and the next day it is Milton Friedman. It is like trying to argue with a lump of jelly – except that people seem to pay him for his worthless opinions. A truly shocking state of affairs.
12 Frances Coppola // Jan 3, 2012 at 1:11 am
I have put a version of my comment above on Murphy’s blog. Let’s see if it gets through moderation.
13 Matthew L // Jan 3, 2012 at 2:50 am
Do you mean that neo-liberal is now a synonym for fascist?
14 Johnson // Jan 3, 2012 at 4:32 am
You’ve got the attention of that intellectual lightweight and paranoid loser Timmy Fenton as well. You’ve had a good day for riling up subcretins who have difficulty identifying their own body parts.
15 Johnathan Pearce // Jan 3, 2012 at 10:49 am
No Tom, just no, we don’t say that about people.
16 freemarketblogging // Jan 3, 2012 at 11:25 am
Wear it like a badge of honour. It means you have done your job properly.
I do enjoy when he says that it is the right that is undemocratic yet supports a superstate. The results of which history has shown us leads to authoritarian dictatorships.
17 cuffleyburgers // Jan 3, 2012 at 2:55 pm
Frances Coppola – the EU was never intended to be a coalition of nation states and that is the problem with it – it is FUNDAMENTALLY about transferring sovereignty to an unelected supra national “elite”.
And Tim, I think I can see Murph’s point in that the majority vote is of other EU governments and not of the goverment of the country in question, however, The point he misses is that by exceeding the limit, the government in question is effectively spending german taxpayers’ money and so the government has no right to do it not the electorate to expect them to.
It’s all a horrendous fuck up and I don’t know how it is going to end.
18 G Orwell // Jan 7, 2012 at 2:03 am
Don’t the Swiss ban Government defecits? Of course the Greeks are a far better model to follow!
Leave a Comment