I\’m banned from Ritchie\’s comments. Again

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?


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 thoughts on “I\’m banned from Ritchie\’s comments. Again”

  1. “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. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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”!

  5. 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.

  6. I have put a version of my comment above on Murphy’s blog. Let’s see if it gets through moderation.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *