Ha ha, just kidding, what does Owen Jones either know or care about the state of the nation? He’s into navel gazing about whether it is Conference, the NEC or Jezza who has the upper hand in who sits on the choccie biccie or not choccie biccie subcommittee of the panel on non-substantive meetings.
In three weeks’ time, it is entirely plausible that Nigel Farage’s Brexit party will triumph in the European parliamentary elections. It will be the greatest victory for bigotry in politics since the EU referendum campaign;
Leave is terribly bad because Owen Jones doesn’t like Nigel Farage.
Yesterday, Labour’s national executive committee reaffirmed the party’s position on Brexit: that is, it would prioritise a general election to remove the Tories from power, and if that wasn’t possible, it would “support all options remaining on the table, including campaigning for a public vote”. This isn’t controversial, you would think: it would be odd for the NEC to usurp the decision of the party’s sovereign body, and – until now – the conference policy has been lauded by advocates of a second referendum. Yet for the monomaniacal ultra-remainers – who treat those of us who campaigned and voted for remain but are willing to accept compromise as bitter enemies, on a par with Nigel Farage or Jacob Rees-Mogg – this is a great betrayal that makes voting Labour a disgrace.
Grand and otiose rhetoric deployed over that membership of the choccie biccie committee.
Which is where we rather lose the will to continue with Owen Jones. For we are facing a fairly important decision here. Should we be tied into that European superstate under construction? Or should we not be? A decision which would be best taken by considering those two options.
And sure we’ve our prejudices on the subject around here. Best expressed as take off and dust Brussels from orbit just to be sure. We disagree with those that don’t agree, obviously, but we are insistent that the decision about this should be made on the basis of the facts surrounding the decision to be taken.
Owen treats us to a peroration on the biccie committee.
Still, at least this is useful in one manner. Think of a world where we are as Owen Jones desires. We’ve got that democratic accountability of the economy. The State does very much more, possibly all. How are decisions made in that world? Well, they’re made by those same people, in that same manner, as those currently arguing over Vattable or non-Vattable at the tea break. And won’t that be a lovely world where the important issues are decided not by the evidence or facts but by committology?