[53] News from Absurdistan - Legality Instead of Justice - Technically Refined Barbarism

In my last post, I suggested by way of quote that..."[o]n the basis of laws [meaning: anything legislated and thus formally given the status of law, I.G.T.U.] the modern state permits itself everything, much more than the police state did."

The expansion of legalistic nation states into a bureaucratic superstate is a natural corollary of the destruction of the rule of law (the disinterested and consistent practice of justice) and its replacement by the rule of man (the enforcement of an agenda of special interests by those best organised politically).

It never ceases to amaze me that a few people still seem to notice the deplorable aberration, as does the politician quoted below, when recognising that

"Legislation....has its own momentum, overriding both national and European parliaments."

PA reports that Liberal Democrat MP Richard Younger-Ross has announced that he will oppose the revised EU Constitution in the Commons and will vote for a referendum. He argued that the treaty does nothing to fill the "democratic void in Europe." Younger-Ross, a member of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs and European Scrutiny Committees, said: "Europe is vital to Britain's interests, but as Europe has grown, it has become less democratic and more centralised. Legislation is not properly scrutinised. It has its own momentum, overriding both national and European Parliaments. The Reform Treaty does not address these problems. Gordon Brown has said that there will be no further treaty changes for at least 10 years. That is to freeze in place an undemocratic and centralising system. I cannot accept that. For the sake of democracy, I must oppose this treaty and support calls for a referendum on it."

With regard to the below quote (available from the same link), may I warn that mere democracy is not sufficient to stop arbitrary, runaway government.

Also, in the absence of sound constitutional principles, quite naturally, people are interested in democracy only to the extent that it will support their specific demands and leanings; if the latter can be achieved with less democracy people will be happy with it. If it cannot be achieved, they will ask how strong the powers that be are, and comply meekly, if they find them to be strong enough. With people disposed in this way, it will not be too difficult to ensure that the powers that be hold sway over them.

Our religion of democracy (as an end in itself) is shallow, unprincipled and opportunistic. No one will defend it, if defence comes at a net cost.

Open Europe’s Hugo Robinson has an article on the Open Democracy ‘Our Kingdom’ site. He argues that “If the EU is to survive as an entity fit for an age where citizens demand real democracy, it simply cannot continue to plough on with the outmoded formula of integration by stealth. Europe’s citizens expect better, and deserve better than this. In the long run, the EU can only survive if it is built on the mandate of popular legitimacy”.