“From the discussions I have had and am about to have... I think we are fashioning for the future a global deal, a grand bargain, where each continent accepts its responsibilities and its obligations to act to deal with what is a global problem that can only be solved with a global solution,”
Of course, this is more thinly veiled attempts to construct One World Government by the back door. You know, Communism.
I have my own Grand Bargain for Gordon Brown: Resign now or risk swinging from a lamp post*.
Am I being a scaremonger over One World Government? Well, once you begin to impose global controls and regulations on financial markets, the ripples flow back into the Treasuries of each country. Sovereignty is lost. Such groups will grow. It is in their DNA. If they are no longer needed, will they shrink back? No. Will they continually explore ways to extend their remit? Yes. They are a bureaucracy. They will have budgets not directly accountable to the people. It is a recipe for total disaster, for the impoverishment and re-enslavement of Mankind.
Now, I do complain about the actions of individual Governments and our own in particular for not monitoring and managing the value of our currency, but that is a matter for the electorate to hold the Government to account, not for some supra-national entity to presume authority and step in. We must remember that we are dealing with a poisonous cocktail of Socialists, Marxists, Trots, Corporatists and the like, if the EU Commission is anything to go by, who think they know better how our lives must be run. Note the word "must".
The Libertarian Party believes it has the least bad way to improve the lives and freedoms of people, but we only wish that people be given the opportunity to live their lives a certain way, no demands that people must behave, only that they must be personally responsible for theor own lives and decisions and not be dependent upon another without mutual, individual, non-coercive consent.
Lets see if the idea passes the LPUK Libertarian Test:Global Solution?
Test 1. FAIL - it is unaccountable, protects private interests and will almost certainly result in devaluation and thus theft of wealth and property.
Test 2. FAIL - Joseph and Mr Bean would find it useful
Test 3. FAIL - It is supra-national, a transfer of Sovereignty.
* Note that I do not condone summary justice, being a strong supporter of Rule of Law. The issue is that Gordon is playing with fire, risking the very cohesion of civilised society, for once the Genie is out of the bottle, all manner of chaos and destruction can occur far beyond the scope intended by many otherwise decent people driven to distraction.
2 comments:
The Ruiner's pronouncements grow increasingly more grandiose, potty and remote from reality every day.
But it'll never happen: it's not necessary, it wouldn't work, it would kill the City, and other countries both value their sovereignty and are legally constrained from giving it away.
His only motive, of course, is to emphasise "it wasnae me".
There is some truth in that, for sure.
If an international agreement is made, national and thus Gordon's accountability is swept aside, as is any direct accountability for the mess any remedy causes.
It ceases to be something he has to answer for. It takes the argument away from Parliament. But, in so doing, it takes away sovereignty.
I do think that this can happen, not with force of law, but in a de facto manner. Pure Fabianism!
Post a Comment