Britain and the European Union

[Chang]

As there is a thriving thread running on the 2016 U.S. Election, with a great deal of input from U.K. Bums I thought that we may be deserving of a thread of our own on a political issue of some note.

 

Our gallant Prime Minister David Cameron has been busy of late attempting to strike a "New Deal" regarding the United Kingdoms relationship with the European Super state. This is prior to a possible referendum (perhaps as early as the summer of 2016) when the British electorate would decide if the United Kingdom should continue as a member of the European Union.

 

The President of the USA (whom many would consider as a socialist) Barack Obama has already stated that he would like to see Britain continue within the E.U.

 

What is the opinion of the members of this forum regarding this issue?

 

My own view is that i would like to see Britain cut its bonds to the European Socialist Super State but to be honest, with the quality and mindset of our political leaders, I doubt that it would make a deal of difference in the long term. The zeitgeist is both left wing and liberal and this permeates all aspests of our society.

 

So the questions. Should Britain leave the European Union? Will the British people vote to leave the European Union? Will it make a bit of difference if they do or don't?

 

 

 

Edited February 19, 2016 by Chang

[Karl]

I've written about this quite extensively on various forums.

 

The first thing to realise is that Britain no longer has sovereignty, we lost that in 1975. The EU is a German project backed by the USA and Britain wasn't originally a member. It wasn't really needed anyway. The reason we joined was our failing economy. We were the sick man of Europe. The point of the Union is to turn it into a federal superstate in which each country has a pseudo sovereign feel, but is actually run from Brussels by German command.

 

Both the leavers (of which I'm one) and the remainers are selling a story of fear without the facts. It's information that the leavers have been forced to do this by the remainers campaign-project fear.

 

Leaving Europe isn't going to be all milk and honey. That needs admitting up front, but not for the reasons the remain campaign wants us to believe. It won't hurt jobs, it won't make us less secure, it won't mean we are more vulnerable, it won't mean we will be prevented from trading.

 

The reason it will hurt is that we are living in a global financial economy. It's uncertain how long this can last on current form, but, whilst it does we can be sure that our welfare system will remain relatively intact. The money goes around in a big loop and each country takes its share of the pain. You can see how this works with interest rates and QE. No state really varies much in its rhetoric that low interest, 2% inflation, QE and austerity are all the way to go. Germany is the most powerful country economically in Europe. Britiain is dependent of financialisation. These areas of business are irrevocably economically linked-and Germany wants to get her hands on Britains financial sector. To control it totally. What's really happening in these negotiations is that Cameron is trying to engineer the retention of our financial sector from being swallowed by Europe.

 

So, if we leave Europe we can guarantee two things. One is that our banking system woukd come under immense pressure from Germany. Every attempt would be made to smash it and take control. Secondly, we would quickly struggle to maintain the welfare sector. The Government wouldn't run out of money, but it would end up in a similar position to Greece in microcosm.

 

The last part of the puzzle is that we would need to manage our own free trade agreements and defence. This would probably be more expensive than it currently is. Our Government relies on the EU to do all the negotiating on its behalf and that negotiating requires a lot of 'sweeteners'. Our current defence capability is woefully inadequate and would need considerable spending to beef it up.

 

So, that sounds all bad eh ;-)

 

These are the realities and we should know them before putting our x's in the box to leave.

 

Now, the opportunities are potentially massive, but it's like any business, you have to have the right entrepreneurs with a stomach for enterprise. The banks have to begin accepting risk and not simply being spoon fed by the state and its fiscal/monetary policy. Britain will have to go back to work. We have decades of industrial decay, bad education, easy living and sloth. We will be faced with a vey rapid and harsh commando assault course where we had better get our shit together. The reward for getting it together is immense. It's the same as when we left Europe the first time after we broke from the RC church. We made rapid progress and ruled an enormous empire by trade and attrition. We could do so again. It isn't impossible, but it will be hard.

 

Now, I say, if you are my age, or close to retirement and want an easy life, then you shouldn't really vote to leave. At least in the short term whilst the global economy persists this is the better option. However, if you are young, a go getter, you want a challenge and an opportunity then, vote to leave. This is funny really, because, the opposite is happening. It's the older people voting to leave and the youngsters wanting to stay.

 

So, I'm voting out. I will accept that it will probably be painful for me at my age, but that it will ultimately lead to vast improvements globally. This is exactly what happened when we left last time. We changed the world and it does noted changing or we are going to be in trouble as a race.

Edited February 19, 2016 by Karl

[Chang]

A very well presented statement of the facts.

 

I must admit to having doubts that we will see a referendum this summer but should we do so I also will be voting to come out.

 

It is true what you say regarding the youth vote wishing to remain European. Youth, being idealistic, see's Socialism as the way forward along with diversity and multi culturalism. I would not like to predict which way a vote would go as I have little to no faith in the electorate.

[Karl]

A very well presented statement of the facts.

 

I must admit to having doubts that we will see a referendum this summer but should we do so I also will be voting to come out.

 

It is true what you say regarding the youth vote wishing to remain European. Youth, being idealistic, see's Socialism as the way forward along with diversity and multi culturalism. I would not like to predict which way a vote would go as I have little to no faith in the electorate.

 

I would say that we will remain in Europe. However, the referendum isn't the end. Cameron never expected to actually honour his promise because the election polls predicted labour would win. The point of the referendum promise was to placate his back benchers and stop the rise of UKIP. A referendum is always a bad idea because it creates in the minds of the public an ongoing potential to decide on political issues through the polling booth. It's no longer easy for a Government to leave an issue as settled once the die is cast. So, far from the referendum ending the argument as many woukd prefer, it instead leaves open the door for ever in both directions regardless of result. The Scottish referendum is a prime example. Eventually the SNP will get its way, or England will vote away Scotland. It's like a marriage where one partner threatens to leave if things don't change permanently. From then on its just a matter of time.

 

As it is the EU is pulling itself apart. The four countries-Poland, Hungary, Estonia and Czechoslovakia are beginning to look towards Russia once again. The immigrant crisis looks like it has done for Merkel. Greece is debauched. Italy and Spain are looking shaky financially and there are splits appearing within their own borders. France has seen the rise of Marie Le Pens party after the mess Hollandes socialist Government has made. Even Germans are considering their own position in Europe. With a failing economy, stagnation, debt and the state of the Eastern/Southern members plus the shaky Deutche Bank it looks increasingly likely that it will fall apart in its present iteration. What the EU will look like in 25 years is anyone's guess, but it won't look like it does today.

 

Voting out would be a kindness really. Europe could then reform itself properly and Britain could stop belly aching and put its cock on the block. Everyone would benefit in the long run. Greece could have done that. It should have cut and run, sold off assets to build a financial base, cut taxes for corporations and trimmed its structurally flawed fiscal position. It could have built its own stock exchange and run on Gold backed currency. It would have been hard in the short term, but nothing like the consistently declining mess and misery the population will endure for decades.

[Chang]

We do indeed live in interesting times.

 

It will be interesting to see what comments our American cousins make.

[Brian]

We do indeed live in interesting times.

 

It will be interesting to see what comments our American cousins make.

I think you will see governments taking up arms against their citizenry before this dissolution is in full swing. Look back 150 years in US history for a stark example of sovereign States attempting to leave a voluntary Union.

[Karl]

I think you will see governments taking up arms against their citizenry before this dissolution is in full swing. Look back 150 years in US history for a stark example of sovereign States attempting to leave a voluntary Union.

By proxy as now. They don't need to take up arms these days. The new method is false flag terrorism in its many guises, or internal bickering. Set one side against another in a typical Hegelian dialectic and then suggest the synthesis. People always fall for the false middle-the compromise. They don't want full socialism, nor full capitalism so they settle for a 'mixed' economy which satisfies the ruling elite as they can make the people pay for their socialistic streak and make lots of money by their insistence of state regulation-which prevents cronies having competition or risk.

 

So, they can do the same by creating full fear of devolution against fear of consolidation. Everyone plumps for a negotiated compromise-exactly what Cameron has effected. "Look" he will say" there's more to be done, it isn't perfect, but now I have a deal which is a good deal for Britain and allows us to have more control over the European direction". It's all rubbish, but it will keep the people happy, his party happy and the ruling elite happy. It's the elite who wish to remain part of the EU.

 

There was a little Freudian slip by a Tory MP Justine Greening when she said "you are getting an opportunity to vote" and hurriedly changed the 'you' to a 'we'. Caught that one Justine I'm afraid. You, the proles, are being allowed to vote, you had better vote the way we tell you.

Edited February 19, 2016 by Karl

[Brian]

The pretense of noble and evolved civility lasts only as long as the audience responds appropriately to the theater.

[Brian]

Just heard on the radio at the top of the hour that a recent poll shows 62% of Brits surveyed believe the EU would not permit the UK to leave the Union if the vote goes that way.

 

Consider South Carolina in 1860...

[Karl]

Just heard on the radio at the top of the hour that a recent poll shows 62% of Brits surveyed believe the EU would not permit the UK to leave the Union if the vote goes that way.Consider South Carolina in 1860...

 

People keep saying 'Britain to leave the EU' but they don't get it. There is no longer a country called Britain anymore than there is a Kingdom of Mercia.

 

We are talking, not so much of leaving as restoring a Kingdom. The machinery for that has long ago rusted and decayed. I'm not even sure we know what it looks like, where it is, or how it's supposed to function. It's not so much that the EU won't let us go, it's that we might have lost the mechanism to release us. We have been docked for so long it's hard to know where the pier stats and the ship ends. We won't really know which bits are vital until we begin to try and tear ourselves away.

[Apech]

I've given up on idealism on this subject and don't see this as having anything to do with ideology, left vs. right and so on.  Yes the EU is supposed by its architects to evolve into a superstate, presumably so that it has global muscle and a large and relatively prosperous internal market.  Perhaps this is Europe's best form of self protection given the competition from the US, China, India and so on.  I don't know the answer to this - but I do see a tension between the traditional English pragmatic individualism and what you might call Roman law and administration.  This does revolve around the role of the state.  Unfortunately the Blairs and Camerons have eroded the traditional classical liberal virtues of the rights of the individual, replacing it with the nanny state - whether its a pink one or a blue one makes little difference.

 

So from a practical point of view you have a number of issues and problems.  The EU as it is, is hopeless.  The refugee/migrant crisis has demonstrated how unable it is to act effectively or decisively in these kinds of situations.  The Eurozone was rushed through, Shengen was rushed through - both without proper checks and balances or assessments of risks and so on.  The political processes and decision making are hopelessly complicated, wasteful and opaque.  The whole thing is highly undemocratic - if democracy is understood in include both accountability and the power to dismiss leaders based on performance.

 

But I think what has to be understood is how entangled we already are.  Many Brits live in Europe (including yours truly), I don't see the banks, financial services industry and so on as being as distinct as they may seem on the surface.  Just because HSBC is based in the City doesn't make it a British bank.  Industry and trade are also completely intertwined.  Many jobs depend on EU membership and also many companies in the UK rely on EU workers.  I think this will be the determining factor - the grim economic reality of dependency.

 

The UK always has dreams of Agincourt, the Battle of Britain and Empire ... but although it's nice to sing Land of Hope and Glory if we rid ourselves of Europe it could well be a case of the emperors new clothes as we stand shivering at the Atlantic's edge.  And that brings in another point - where do we look to for friends? the special relationship with the US which Obama gives lip service to but ignores? I think Hillary would be better but I don't like her much - and Trump and Sanders both seem to want walls of different kinds.

 

So in the end I will vote to stay in - not because I like it much but because this question should have been asked years ago and now is the wrong time.

[Apech]

People keep saying 'Britain to leave the EU' but they don't get it. There is no longer a country called Britain anymore than there is a Kingdom of Mercia. We are talking, not so much of leaving as restoring a Kingdom. The machinery for that has long ago rusted and decayed. I'm not even sure we know what it looks like, where it is, or how it's supposed to function. It's not so much that the EU won't let us go, it's that we might have lost the mechanism to release us. We have been docked for so long it's hard to know where the pier stats and the ship ends. We won't really know which bits are vital until we begin to try and tear ourselves away.

 

I was pondering earlier if there's even a constitutional problem here.  If say Scotland were to vote overwhelmingly to stay in, and England to leave - then would Parliament (+the crown) be in a position to force Scotland to leave.  I wonder what the Act of Union says about such things.

[Brian]

People keep saying 'Britain to leave the EU' but they don't get it. There is no longer a country called Britain anymore than there is a Kingdom of Mercia. We are talking, not so much of leaving as restoring a Kingdom. The machinery for that has long ago rusted and decayed. I'm not even sure we know what it looks like, where it is, or how it's supposed to function. It's not so much that the EU won't let us go, it's that we might have lost the mechanism to release us. We have been docked for so long it's hard to know where the pier stats and the ship ends. We won't really know which bits are vital until we begin to try and tear ourselves away.

A similar situation as in mid-19th Century America. South Carolina loudly protested false promises and the decline of rule of law, chose to reclaim its full sovereignty after less than 100 years, began a peaceful recollection of its own infrastructure, and were then told they wouldn't be allowed to do so -- that they had unwittingly surrendered that sovereignty and entered into an indivisible union. Their neighboring sovereign states were ordered to form armies to invade but several chose to join them instead.

 

Then bad things happened.

[Chang]

I was pondering earlier if there's even a constitutional problem here.  If say Scotland were to vote overwhelmingly to stay in, and England to leave - then would Parliament (+the crown) be in a position to force Scotland to leave.  I wonder what the Act of Union says about such things.

 

As things stand at present the referendum would decide if the U.K. as a whole should stay or go.

 

There is little doubt however that Scotland with its Parliament controlled by the Scottish Nationalists (do not be fooled by the term nationalist as they are a bunch of Socialist Extremists) will continue to push for independence. Should they eventually succeed and leave the Union we would be then be faced with an independent Scotland pushing for E.U. membership.

 

It is all very much a sorry mess.

[Karl]

I've given up on idealism on this subject and don't see this as having anything to do with ideology, left vs. right and so on.  Yes the EU is supposed by its architects to evolve into a superstate, presumably so that it has global muscle and a large and relatively prosperous internal market.  Perhaps this is Europe's best form of self protection given the competition from the US, China, India and so on.  I don't know the answer to this - but I do see a tension between the traditional English pragmatic individualism and what you might call Roman law and administration.  This does revolve around the role of the state.  Unfortunately the Blairs and Camerons have eroded the traditional classical liberal virtues of the rights of the individual, replacing it with the nanny state - whether its a pink one or a blue one makes little difference.

 

So from a practical point of view you have a number of issues and problems.  The EU as it is, is hopeless.  The refugee/migrant crisis has demonstrated how unable it is to act effectively or decisively in these kinds of situations.  The Eurozone was rushed through, Shengen was rushed through - both without proper checks and balances or assessments of risks and so on.  The political processes and decision making are hopelessly complicated, wasteful and opaque.  The whole thing is highly undemocratic - if democracy is understood in include both accountability and the power to dismiss leaders based on performance.

 

But I think what has to be understood is how entangled we already are.  Many Brits live in Europe (including yours truly), I don't see the banks, financial services industry and so on as being as distinct as they may seem on the surface.  Just because HSBC is based in the City doesn't make it a British bank.  Industry and trade are also completely intertwined.  Many jobs depend on EU membership and also many companies in the UK rely on EU workers.  I think this will be the determining factor - the grim economic reality of dependency.

 

The UK always has dreams of Agincourt, the Battle of Britain and Empire ... but although it's nice to sing Land of Hope and Glory if we rid ourselves of Europe it could well be a case of the emperors new clothes as we stand shivering at the Atlantic's edge.  And that brings in another point - where do we look to for friends? the special relationship with the US which Obama gives lip service to but ignores? I think Hillary would be better but I don't like her much - and Trump and Sanders both seem to want walls of different kinds.

 

So in the end I will vote to stay in - not because I like it much but because this question should have been asked years ago and now is the wrong time.

 

I would say that it isn't the banks per se, but the banks owners that are British. It's not just the banks, it's a litany of an elite that rarely reveals itself to scrutiny. Mandleson, Blair, Ken Clarke, Hesselitine, Chris Patten, Malcolm Rifkind, Cameron and Osborne are the most prominent public figures. However behind them are the market manipulators of Martin Sorrell and Roland Rudd through WPP, the World Economic Forum (Davos)-which is the mirror of the US Bildenberg Group. Behind these people sit the real players and it's easier just to make a list of those who attended Davos this year. It's a big wealthy club in which the players constantly jockey for position. The British elite are still very imperialistic and see the US wealthy as the farming cousins and the Europeans as the poor cousins.

 

I think that some believe in an instant British reformation, but this isn't really the view of the serious outers who correctly identify the issues and know what is required. They are regarded as little Englanders, ironically that's what the remain group are. They still think in terms of British European supremacy.

 

There is no 'special relationship' between the US and Britain. We threw that away in the First World War when we regarded the US as our country cousins who were obligated to defend the British Elite. When it was all over, we welched on our payments and failed to show proper respect. The result was, that after WW2 the US didn't make the same errors and milked us dry of every asset we had. We were then just a lapdog with a bit of a superior attitude. The special relationship is actually with Germany, Israel and Saudi Arabia.

 

Voting to stay won't stop the rot in the long run. That day of reckoning is coming, it's just the date which is in doubt. Could be tomorrow or 25 years from now.

 

I don't blame you for voting in if you have seriously understood the situation and know that it's really a slave/master relationship (if a somewhat benign version). Eventually, like Rome it will all crash to the ground and we will have to take our chances then-at which point we will be in far more shock than we are today. At my age it's likely I will miss the great fall, but certainly any children you might have will go through it. I don't think it will be a very nice time to live through. Somewhat like the dark ages.

 

 

[Chang]

I've given up on idealism on this subject and don't see this as having anything to do with ideology, left vs. right and so on.  Yes the EU is supposed by its architects to evolve into a superstate, presumably so that it has global muscle and a large and relatively prosperous internal market.  Perhaps this is Europe's best form of self protection given the competition from the US, China, India and so on.  I don't know the answer to this - but I do see a tension between the traditional English pragmatic individualism and what you might call Roman law and administration.  This does revolve around the role of the state.  Unfortunately the Blairs and Camerons have eroded the traditional classical liberal virtues of the rights of the individual, replacing it with the nanny state - whether its a pink one or a blue one makes little difference.

 

So from a practical point of view you have a number of issues and problems.  The EU as it is, is hopeless.  The refugee/migrant crisis has demonstrated how unable it is to act effectively or decisively in these kinds of situations.  The Eurozone was rushed through, Shengen was rushed through - both without proper checks and balances or assessments of risks and so on.  The political processes and decision making are hopelessly complicated, wasteful and opaque.  The whole thing is highly undemocratic - if democracy is understood in include both accountability and the power to dismiss leaders based on performance.

 

But I think what has to be understood is how entangled we already are.  Many Brits live in Europe (including yours truly), I don't see the banks, financial services industry and so on as being as distinct as they may seem on the surface.  Just because HSBC is based in the City doesn't make it a British bank.  Industry and trade are also completely intertwined.  Many jobs depend on EU membership and also many companies in the UK rely on EU workers.  I think this will be the determining factor - the grim economic reality of dependency.

 

The UK always has dreams of Agincourt, the Battle of Britain and Empire ... but although it's nice to sing Land of Hope and Glory if we rid ourselves of Europe it could well be a case of the emperors new clothes as we stand shivering at the Atlantic's edge.  And that brings in another point - where do we look to for friends? the special relationship with the US which Obama gives lip service to but ignores? I think Hillary would be better but I don't like her much - and Trump and Sanders both seem to want walls of different kinds.

 

So in the end I will vote to stay in - not because I like it much but because this question should have been asked years ago and now is the wrong time.

 

You have surprised me here Apech as i have always thought of you as a dyed in the wool Socialist who would fight and die for a Socialist Europe. Just goes to show that one should not assume too much about anyone as you may be proved wrong.

[Karl]

I was pondering earlier if there's even a constitutional problem here.  If say Scotland were to vote overwhelmingly to stay in, and England to leave - then would Parliament (+the crown) be in a position to force Scotland to leave.  I wonder what the Act of Union says about such things.

 

No it wouldn't have to. Scotland is a sovereign state in its own right. The act of union was voluntary. The story of that union is very interesting. It was a group of Scottish noblemen who got themselves into debt and England rescued them from penury. It's possible that the creditors might have taken Scotland as payment had England not stepped in. So, in essence it was a union of convenience in which Scotland retained its sovereignty. The campaign to leave Britain was a wholly Scottish affair but the underlying fiscal/monetary structure means that it isn't so simple. This was one reason why Alex Salmond refused to answer the currency question. It wasn't about 'using the pound' but how the central bank, treasury and taxation system functions. It's like wiring and plumbing two houses together with one drain, one boiler, one cold water main and one distribution box. Scotland woukd have needed to split all those functions and it woukd have been completely without services until it established its own functioning tax/lending economy.

 

So, the threat by Scotland to hold another referendum or stay in the EU is quite meaningless. It's just another ploy to get England to give the Scottish Parliament more powers and a bigger share of the overall tax take of the U.K.

[Apech]

As things stand at present the referendum would decide if the U.K. as a whole should stay or go.

 

There is little doubt however that Scotland with its Parliament controlled by the Scottish Nationalists (do not be fooled by the term nationalist as they are a bunch of Socialist Extremists) will continue to push for independence. Should they eventually succeed and leave the Union we would be then be faced with an independent Scotland pushing for E.U. membership.

 

It is all very much a sorry mess.

 

 

Sure I realise that but that's not the point I was making.

 

I don't know the answer to this but ... the Queen is actually a dual monarch of both kingdoms of England and Scotland (I'm ignoring Wales and NI for now).  Now say the Govt. gets a 'leave' vote as a whole but the Scots vote remain.  So Parliament asks the Queen to sign the Act repudiating the EU treaties - and she says 'hang on a minute - you're telling me as Queen of Scotland to sign an Act which has no support amongst my subjects in Scotland' - ans. No I won't.  Or even more - if there is only a small majority to leave in the whole of the UK she could still refuse saying that she is being misdirected by her counsellors.  Now it would be unlikely to happen this way - and more likely be a constitutional crisis around the formulation of the Act of Parliament where the Monarch says you are acting ultra vires.

 

Just a thought.

[Apech]

You have surprised me here Apech as i have always thought of you as a dyed in the wool Socialist who would fight and die for a Socialist Europe. Just goes to show that one should not assume too much about anyone as you may be proved wrong.

 

Two points:

 

1 ) I was never a socialist as such although perhaps a left leaning centrist - but EU is not socialist so that whole scenario doesn't stand.

 

2 ) I have said on here many times my core values are individual liberty under the law (magna carta, bill of rights - etc.) in other words a default position of liberty but with laws to protect the person and property and so on.

 

My main arguments with people (i.e. Americans) were against the conflation socialist = communist = fascist which I don't agree with.  What I do agree with is the current tension is libertarian vs. authoritarian.  Or perhaps 'liberal' versus totalitarian (slightly different).

[Apech]

No it wouldn't have to. Scotland is a sovereign state in its own right. The act of union was voluntary. The story of that union is very interesting. It was a group of Scottish noblemen who got themselves into debt and England rescued them from penury. It's possible that the creditors might have taken Scotland as payment had England not stepped in. So, in essence it was a union of convenience in which Scotland retained its sovereignty. The campaign to leave Britain was a wholly Scottish affair but the underlying fiscal/monetary structure means that it isn't so simple. This was one reason why Alex Salmond refused to answer the currency question. It wasn't about 'using the pound' but how the central bank, treasury and taxation system functions. It's like wiring and plumbing two houses together with one drain, one boiler, one cold water main and one distribution box. Scotland woukd have needed to split all those functions and it woukd have been completely without services until it established its own functioning tax/lending economy. So, the threat by Scotland to hold another referendum or stay in the EU is quite meaningless. It's just another ploy to get England to give the Scottish Parliament more powers and a bigger share of the overall tax take of the U.K.

 

 

I don't agree because as I said above I think it revolves around the person of the monarch.

[Chang]

Two points:

 

1 ) I was never a socialist as such although perhaps a left leaning centrist - but EU is not socialist so that whole scenario doesn't stand.

 

2 ) I have said on here many times my core values are individual liberty under the law (magna carta, bill of rights - etc.) in other words a default position of liberty but with laws to protect the person and property and so on.

 

My main arguments with people (i.e. Americans) were against the conflation socialist = communist = fascist which I don't agree with.  What I do agree with is the current tension is libertarian vs. authoritarian.  Or perhaps 'liberal' versus totalitarian (slightly different).

 

I would be quite prepared to describe the European Union as a Left Wing Liberal Totalitarian State.

[Apech]

I would be quite prepared to describe the European Union as a Left Wing Liberal Totalitarian State.

 

 

I think that was true once but not now.

[Chang]

I think that was true once but not now.

 

How then would you describe it presently? A benign bureaucracy perhaps, though that is hardly the case.

[Apech]

How then would you describe it presently? A benign bureaucracy perhaps, though that is hardly the case.

 

It's a kind of plutocracy.  It was obvious when the austerity thing hit this country - officials bossing elected representatives - hardly a democracy of any kind.

[Apech]

and hardly left wing either.