Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Rebecca Harms, a senior member of the German Green Party, and co-President of a major Green Group in the European Parliament, thinks referendums, direct plebiscites, should be limited to issues which don’t endanger power structures which she thinks are important.
According to Breitbart;
Greens Want To Ban Referendums On European Questions, As Direct Democracy Threatens the EU
A senior Member of the European Parliament (MEP) for the German Green Party has called for an end to referendums on issues “not suitable” for direct democracy because they threaten the very existence of the European Union (EU).
Rebecca Harms MEP (pictured above), a qualified tree surgeon and Co-President of The Greens–European Free Alliance group in the European Parliament, has said that some questions relating to the EU are not suitable for referendums.
Showing how much she values direct democracy, Ms. Harms used the shock of the recent rejection of the EU-Ukrainian agreement by the Netherlands to make the case for limiting the use of referendums in future warning that they could “endanger the existence of the EU”, reports Austria’s largest newspaper Kronen Zeitung.
According to German newspaper Kölner Stadt-Anzeiger, the list of subjects which others have deemed “not suitable” for referendums include the controversial but yet-to-be-finalised Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) agreement with the U.S., the principle of open borders within the EU, and the future of the euro currency.
…
Even worse, the left wing German newspaper Junge Welt reports that Ms. Harms claimed it is unacceptable for a mob of people to be able to reject an agreement that was “supported by all governments of Member States and their parliaments.”
This is not the first time WUWT has noted the authoritarian tendencies of some greens, ranging from praising the “efficiency” of the Chinese dictatorship, complaining about democratic “paralysis”, Bill Gates rant against representative democracy, or President Obama’s $500 million giveaway, without congressional approval.
Far too many prominent greens seem to think that some decisions are too important to be decided by voters. I guess when you believe the world is on the brink of a climate catastrophe, it is horribly easy to feel contempt for the wishes of ordinary people, especially when those wishes impede your great mission.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Democracy as we knew it in the twentieth century has had great success in exporting itself to a pile of countries that were previously under authoritarian rule, and in combination with moderately free markets, has raised billions out of multi-generational poverty.
Democracy in countries where it first developed (loosely – Europe and the Anglosphere) is under threat from two directions.
The so-called “green” movement, which has been taken over from within by a core group of zealots using the AGW model to intimidate anyone who might still have the idea that being green means clean air, clean water, preserve a bit of habitat for wildlife (i.e. normal stuff that almost everyone believes in). Their position is “we know best and we can’t trust democracy to save us from all roasting” and they have convinced a lot of politicians to go along with this and force their low-energy agenda onto national and sub-national governments.
On the other front, “big business” has caught on to the power of creating and maintaining employment to push through things like the TTIP and all the other “trade agreements” that have stuff in it that says “Our right to make a profit in your country, and to export said profit to somewhere else where we don’t pay so much tax, supersedes your right to elect a government to run the affairs of your country in accord with the wishes of your people (except when we need a subsidy to establish or maintain a plant in your land, or when we screw up, lose billions and need a bailout)”
Our way of life has been a bit of a balancing act between the traditional “right” and the traditional “left”. Both of these forces are becoming sidelined as shallow, spineless, deceitful politicians (how’s that for a triple redundancy?) get manipulated by these forces that barely existed a generation ago. Sigh.
Well said + 100
“…the traditional ‘right’ and the the traditional ‘left. Both of these forces are becoming sidelined….”
They were sidelined a long time ago. The real struggle for many years now has been between we-the-people and the special interests. The idea that there has been any real struggle between right and left has been a convenient fiction that distracts the electorate and allows the special interests to continue to buy influence and to control governments.
At least people in EU and US have begun to see the illusion of two party systems and representative governments for what they really are. It is the first step in bringing about needed change.
Mod filter must be set on high today.
She is green and seems to have overgrown her place a bit. Perhaps she just needs a touch of pruning here and there?
TonyL April 12, 2016 at 8:48 am
Perhaps she just needs a touch of pruning here and there?
Round up
michael
Round Up might work. Just seemed that pruning a tree surgeon was more poetic. Style Matters.
She need pollarding more like.
Call in the Lumberjacks who are all OK.
whatever happened to the dictatorship of the proletariat Ms. Harms? or should that be “Dr. Harms physician to the trees”?
Well, I have heard of someone being a physician to the stars.
I can hear the claims of ‘conspiracy theory’ echoing with the MarxBrothers throughout the UN and EU every time someone points out their blatant moves to consolidate control over the people of the world. China and Russia are impervious to these machinations because they’ve already achieved such totalitarian control and aren’t about to give it up to anyone. What’s that tell you?
I laughed my pants off at “qualified tree surgeon” !!!
Anyone know what an unqualified tree surgeon is?
Same as an unqualified one.
Surgeon was a marketing ploy of the 1970s. Before that they were called either gardeners or tree fellers, depending on how big the bits they cut off were.
Surgeon? A pretentious name if ever there was. You don’t do 7 years of medical college to become a tree “surgeon” ! You just learn to climb a ladder.
Day 1 cut tree, day two collect diploma
Well no, one has to study and practise to become a ‘practical botanist, tree manager and plant pathologist’, to varying levels of course.
May be slightly off topic but…I believe that this Green thinks that regulations are good; my problems with regulations are the process by which they are developed. All are bureaucracies.
Bureaucracies are in some cases necessary evils. The problem with bureaucracy is that they always feel the need to grow, even when their mission is met. Growth means more regulations, more capital and more personnel.
Self-regulation has failed in the past; look at Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle” for the food industry and the prevalent smog problems in the US during the 50’s and 60’s. The Food and Drug Administration calmed the public fears of food poisoning, and the Environmental Protection agency did manage to clean up the environment.
The problem isn’t with the initial purpose of the agencies, but their desire for growth and more power. Instead of reacting to a public need, they present possible problems and proceed from there.
This is evidenced by the EPA’s classification of CO2 as a pollutant. How can a component of the atmosphere and a necessary part of the life cycle be branded as a pollutant? But this classification allows the department to add more divisions to monitor and regulate emissions and hence ask for more money from the public. And it can be used as cost justification for “renewables” by the Department of Energy.
Bureaucracy is insidious. The energy groups lobby non-governmental entities such as ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers) to set energy standards, standards that are non-binding but are written in code language. These standards are usually adopted by the ruling bureaucracy and the public is usually unaware of the impact. So a small group, influenced by the government sets standards which become code and hence the law.
Supposedly the regulatory agencies are acting in the public, not political interest. However, all these groups are headed by political appointees. Is the party in power to place a department head that disagrees with their philosophy?
I don’t know about other countries, but in the US more and more people are either hired into these bureaucracies or supported by the government there is less and less available for the common person. There is less and less democracy, and like ancient Constantinople we ae doomed to fail under the weight of all the paper.
The walls of Constantinople failed under the weight of Mohammad’s guns.
Our legislature needs to be more specific in the legislation they write and not leave the regulatory details to be written by bureaucrats. That is how CO2 became a “pollutant”.
The Byzantine Empire was dead long before its walls were breached.
You should clarify, It was Emperor Mohammad the 2nd, better known as Mehmed the Conqueror, nearly a thousand years after THE Mohammad.
And Constantinople was never a democracy. It was the Roman Republic which fell under its own bureaucratic weight and infighting, leading to the rise of Augustus.
Ben is correct, except I’ve seen various spellings of his name. Unfortunately everyone seems to tink it was his artillery that won the battle, when in fact it was his decision to haul ships over the Horn that decided mthe issue.https://gravatar.com/site/signup/
Djozar commented: “….This is evidenced by the EPA’s classification of CO2 as a pollutant. How can a component of the atmosphere and a necessary part of the life cycle be branded as a pollutant?….”
You’re assuming the EPA decided this on their own. I believe this administration directed them to do it.
No the EPA was a problem before Obama came along. He just opened a door for them.
Greg commented: “,,,No the EPA was a problem before Obama came along. He just opened a door for them…..”
Correct, but they would have never been successful in declaring CO2 a pollutant without him so what’s the difference?
The illness at the heart of the Green Gangs fear and loathing always comes forth when democracy threatens their control.
Just as you are allowed free speech,as long as you agree with the mob, you can enjoy the privileges and responsibilities of a democracy as long as you vote in the manner approved by Gang Green.
As the ideology spreads, very much like an infection, the consequences become ever more obvious.
Seems the USA has 20 such victims impersonating State Attorney Generals at the moment.
Blatantly in violation of their Oath of Office.
Seems if you scratch any of these world saving gentle persons,you find a raving power-hungry wanna be dictator.
Some things never change.
Most interestingly,as the prize is snatched away from the greedy, their true natures shine through.
She’s a strong contender in the Nominal Determinism stakes, I’ll give her that.
Next thing you know, Emperor Palpatine will be dissolving the senate.
And Jar Jar Binks rises in power, too, and becomes a diplomat.
Nice to see, how Greens understand democrathy 😀
Isn’t part of their vocabulary 😀
Dry rot from the mouth. Think she just amputated herself at the knees.
The infamous vegetarian and conservationist Adolf Hitler would be proud of Rebecca Harms.
In almost all so-called “democratic” countries, people get to vote only for parties and/or individuals. We obsess over the relative virtues of people like Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin or Donald Trump, while having to guess at the legislative initiatives and executive decisions that they might actually adopt when elected. This traditional model of “representative” democracy is a dinosaur. It may have been the only workable solution in times past with their slow and limited means of communication, particularly in geographically large counties. With modern means of communication, however, it would be a piece of cake to hold a referendum once a month even in a country as spread out as Canada. There really is no valid excuse any more for denying people direct democratic participation.
To all those who wonder whether direct democracy can really work, I suggest that they answer the following questions:
1. Name the country that holds the highest number referenda (which is more than half of all referenda held worldwide).
2. Name a small country that, while surrounded by Nazi Germany, Nazi Austria, fascist Italy, and Nazi-occupied France, was nevertheless strong and self-reliant enough to deter invasion by Nazi Germany.
3. Name a country that is more peaceful, more stable, more well-to-do, and generally better governed than Switzerland.
4. Name a Swiss politician, past or current.
The most illuminating question here is No. 4. If Switzerland is such a well-run place, why can nobody name a Swiss politician? The reason is that Swiss politicians don’t hold much power; they don’t get to make their mark in history by imposing their misguided ideas on the people, since any such idea can be subjected to a general referendum and shot down. Indeed, Switzerland doesn’t even have a single elected leader, but only a collegial executive council (the Bundesrat). Chances are that egomaniacs like Donald Trump and Nicolas Sarcozy, or control freaks like former Canadian prime minister Harper, wouldn’t even get out of bed in order to run for an office with such limited powers. What you get instead are effective executives that are ready to serve the will of the people.
Collegial leadership under the watchful eye of the people who can take the reins themselves at any time – this system of democracy, while old, has produced unrivalled welfare and stability; it is truly modern.
“4. Name a Swiss politician, past or current. ”
Well there was …. errrm… OK, I take your point. 😉
[snip]
@Michael
The US founders, wisely in my opinion, deliberately designed the governing process to be cumbersome and slow. This was to prevent actions being taken in the heat of the moment where you might “legislate in haste, repent at leisure”. Obamacare being a sterling case in point. I can just imagine someone telling Thomas Jefferson that “we need to pass the law in order to see what’s in it”. And you want more of the same??
Sorry, I don’t understand your question. This is not about “haste”, it is about democratic participation.
I can not address Europe, so I restrict my remarks to the US.
The United States is not a democracy, it is a Constitutional Republic. Politicians were never intended to wield a whole lot of power, so the people would not have to worry about the policy initiatives of a Trump or a Clinton.
The Founding Fathers were terrified of democracy which they likened to unprincipled mob rule. They knew that mob rule would would degenerate to chaos and then produce a Caesar.
Michael, Switzerland is a poor example as they are a small society of like people. Compare that to the U.S. with it’s diverse population. Democracy always fails when the 51% squash the 49% and leave them without recourse. The Founding Fathers understood this very clearly. The problem with the current situation we have here was the passing of the 17th Amendment which changed the way Senators were chosen. Originally they were chosen by the State legislatures thus owing their allegiance to the States. That was changed to a direct election by the people because it was deemed to be a more democratic way. But lo and behold, Senators now owe their allegiance to whoever gives them the most money and helps them stay in power.
I’ve got nothing against Founding Fathers, but it is clear to me that the system of governance they created is inferior to the Swiss system. I agree that the size and the diversity of the U.S. has its own challenges. However, Switzerland stacks up extremely well against most European countries. Take Germany, for example. The country would very clearly be better off if the people had been allowed to vote on, and likely reject, the brain-dead decisions taken by Merkel alone, in the last couple of years, regarding Greece and the refugee crisis.
“Name a small country that, while surrounded by Nazi Germany, Nazi Austria, fascist Italy, and Nazi-occupied France, was nevertheless strong and self-reliant enough to deter invasion by Nazi Germany.”
*********************************************************************************************************
Not strong and self-reliant to deter invasion as such, although the population is fully armed. More a practical insurance policy – if something goes wrong one can disappear with the bank account and proceeds intact.
SteveT
Whowas it – I think it was President Nixon – who said:
‘The People have spoken – the BASTARDS….’
Surprised? Read NAZI GREENS – AN INCONVENIENT HISTORY
The observation in this post is important and reflects more direct admonitions, such as those of Dr. Tim Ball, about what drives today’s ongoing and growing, authoritarianism. Only recently, however, have we seen actions by legislators (with their hangers on), attorneys general, and the judicial system ramp up the state’s legal machinery to silence dissent. And should it surprise us, then, if law enforcement soon gets into the act?
Till now “Climate” has mainly generated (barring private legal actions) only an exchange of words: “sticks and stones,” etc. The shift to legal steps for enforcing government policy has been very gradual, almost laughable, just short of imperceptible. It is here, however, and down deep I do not think they are fooling.
For a thoughtful consideration of what it could all lead to if not directly addressed and restrained, there is perhaps no more provocative an historical background than Martin Durkin’s three-part history of militant environmentalism in Europe, beginning way back with the free market’s destruction of feudalism through the rise of state socialism as a reaction.
Durkin is a TV documentary producer (“The Great Climate Swindle”). His essays below ought to be obligatory reading for political dissenters of any stripe. Well argued and articulated, and copiously footnoted, they are very worth your time and consideration.
http://www.martindurkin.com/blogs/greens-warning-history-volume-one
http://www.martindurkin.com/blogs/greens-warning-history-volume-two
http://www.martindurkin.com/blogs/nazi-greens-inconvenient-history
Otherwise, I am just your friendly neighborhood alarmist crying, wolf!
“Democracy is the very worst form of government except all of the others”, Churchill
……it is unacceptable for a mob of people to be able to reject an agreement that was “supported by all governments of Member States and their parliaments.”……
Of course Ms. Harms must also believe it is unacceptable for a mob of voters to be able to reject her kind of bureaucrats and politicians.
Voting is so messy when it doesn’t go your way.
I reckon Ms. Harms will be in favor of forcing the Brit mob to remain in the EU if they reject it at the polls?
Brexit – Rebecca Harms
She cites the Paris Climate agreement as a reason to keep UK in the EU.
Rebecca Harms talk about Fracking
Ms. Harms, I don’t think I like you.
With permission I would like to link this post with that of the RICO/AG post earlier .
The irony of this, and the similar debate about prosecution of sceptics that was raised a few days ago, is that the Warmists and Greens who support suppression of free opinion and prosecution of sceptics do not need these measures to get all that they desire .
On the scientific side of the debate on climate change most people , lay and professional , accept the principle of radiative forcing , and that in the last 50 years all indications of heat content and temperature have shown a global warming, and associated ice loss and glacier decay. There are details to argue about, and especially about what socioeconomic measures, if any , need to be taken , but the basic science argument is won by the Warmists.
On the specific topic of the EU, also, no country is going to defect so Ms Harms’ fears are groundless because people are too scared to leave. So there is no need to fear a referendum . It will not lead to any change in EU status.
In consideration of the political,engineering (renewables) and economic measures of climate change the argument with the political leaders has also been won , not least through the enthusiastic assistance of the mass media.There was no need for draconian measures to eliminate the relatively few professional , and larger lay population , of opponents to CAGW because there influence was so small.
What Ms Harms , as an extreme Green and Gore/Hansen with their AG hit squad have done is to raise the hackles of people who had no great interest in climate science or indeed the EU , but cared passionately about free speech, human rights, democracy and the rule of law.
On the subject of climate change did they calculate that it was worth angering people concerned with individual freedom if it meant finally wiping out the lingering traces of climate scepticism . It looks as if they did , and I think that they may have have miscalculated – I could be wrong of course.
Sorry: “their influence “
mikewaite commented: :..On the specific topic of the EU, also, no country is going to defect so Ms Harms’ fears are groundless because people are too scared to leave. …”
I have heard this repeated again and again and I hope it, and you, are wrong. If not it is the death knell for The Free Market and Democracy in Europe.
For the record , I will be voting OUT.
She’s not alone.
“Sometimes referenda are forced upon governments if there is sufficient voter support, as was the case in the Netherlands… Perhaps it is time for an EU ban on referenda!”
wrote Fraser Cameron, a former senior adviser to the European Commission here
https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/opinion/why-we-should-ban-referenda-on-eu-policies.
Scratch the surface of the big europe mob and it’s fascism.
Brecht, a Lefty, in response to the Berlin uprising in 1953: “… would it not be easier in that case for the government to dissolve the people and elect another?”.
Brecht was being sarcastic.
Maybe Ms Harms would like to bring back the Stasi to help those of the Mob who don’t hold “suitable” views on subjects like global warming.
Eric,
“I guess when you believe the world is on the brink of a climate catastrophe, it is horribly easy to feel contempt for the wishes of ordinary people, especially when those wishes impede your great mission.”
I believe the “great mission” is actually to get us away from “democratic” governance, and the supposed climate catastrophe is merely a vehicle to justify that end.
I realize this renders me an accuser of (the bulk of) our ostensible saviors, as in they are lying SOBs (and DOBs ; ) and have no interest at all in saving anyone from anything more ominous than basic human rights (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as it was once famously put) . . and worse yet, casts me as a cons-piracy theorist . . and don’t mind.
You might like this book – http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Barbarian-Manifesto-Information/dp/0749435054
Ian Angell, Professor LSE, predicted an attempt to dismantle democracy back in 2001, and provides some intriguing possible explanations for what is happening.
Thanks, Eric.
Can’t buy from Amazon…that taxes thing! Media might expose me?
Be scared.
The Greens and Warmistas are great admirers of authoritarian regimes and philosophies. A Green or Warmista government would bear remarkable similarities to the Chinese dictatorship, North Korea, or Socialist Cuba to avoid reactionary democratic paralysis in the pursuit of their unscientific goals
In the end, democratic Plebocracy is a lot safer than luminary politicians leading a docile herd to destruction..