Saturday, 5 November 2011

Words and deeds

Today has been a rather quiet 'news day, the reasons for which I know not - whether this is due to a dose of ''acropolitis' or that what news there is 'has been all Greek' to us, I know not. Consequently what news and opinions that have been pertinent has, once again, come from the blogosphere.

Initially, let us consider two posts: one by John Redwood and the other by The Boiling Frog. First John Redwood, who queries whether the 'group of 81' might in fact be more than 81. In his post Redwood cites the case of Dr. Phillip Lee who voted against the recent debate calling for a referendum on EU membership, posing the question whether there may have been more like Lee who filed through the 'No' lobby. With all respect to John Redwood, his question could be taken as yet another reason to excuse supposedly eurosceptics not voting according to how their constituents wished - it also has that aroma of smoke 'n mirrors', one whereby Redwood is fudging the basic question, namely either MPs believe in membership of the EU or not.

The Boiling Frog mentions that, despite Conservative Party rhetoric, they have, over the years:
"1. Entered the EEC on a lie (read the 1971 internal document FCO 30/1048)
  2. Campaigned in the 1975 referendum for a yes vote, including Thatcher
  3. Passed the Single European Act

  4. Shadowed the Deutschmark in preparation to enter the ERM.
  5. Entered the ERM which directly lead to the early '90s recession
  6. Passed the Maastricht Treaty
  7.Have become, in Roger Helmer's words the most pro-EU government ever, since elected in 2010.
"
As TBF so rightly states the Conservative Party - and most definitely their MPs - have fudged the issue of EU membership and it is about time that their MPs came down off their respective fences. In this respect the quotation by Andrew Carnegie is most apt where future voting intentions are concerned when matters EU arise for debate and subsequent voting.

Calling England links to the recent Civitas report by Ian Milne in which he believes that the UK's 'extraction'  from the EU can be accomplished within the timetable he sets out. This would indeed be ideal - if only it could be carried out as Milne suggests. Unfortunately, I tend to agree with the view espoused by Richard North, EU Referendum, in his post: "A declaration of independence". That is, I hasten to add, not in anyway intended as criticism of CE, but merely to raise doubts about what Ian Milne believes possible. It is also worth mentioning that while the electorate continues to follow their tribal tendencies, continually voting for the Lib/Lab/Con, it will not allow the opportunity to even test whether Milne or Richard North is correct - a point worthy of serious consideration.

The above demonstrates, in my humble opinion, what is missing from the blogosphere - and this is not in any way intended as a criticism of my fellow bloggers. However, we all sit back offering criticism of all that we know is wrong, complaining - to the extent that we must by now be hoarse of both voice and word - about politics in general and the lack of accountability therein, coupled with that which they are party to, namely a system of democratised dictatorship; and the deficits in sovereignty as a result of our country's membership of the EU. Not one of us, to my knowledge, with the exception or Richard North and his idea of "Referism" and, if I may so bold, myself with my series on "Constitution" in which I argued for a 'participtory' form of democracy based on the Swiss system, has attempted to offer an alternative to the nadir in which this country finds itself.

I wonder, therefore, how many in the blogosphere would be interested in a little exercise, namely formulating an agreed 'new' form of democracy resulting in a document that could be put to the existing political parties and challenging them to incorporate it into their manifestos. Failing which, perhaps it may just promote the formation of a new political party, one with which the general electorate may become enthused, once the basic 'ideals' are explained to them. It is worth mentioning that, in respect of publicity, there are those in the blogosphere who have access to the newspapers by which means they could publicise such an 'alternative' form of democracy.  In any event, if the 'exercise' stirred the torpor that presently exists amongst the electorate and made them question all that is presently wrong with this country's existing democratic debacle, it would have, at least, accomplished its purpose - namely a situation whereby the electorate begin to take an interest in that which is done in their name.

Just thinking..........

Comments, 'takers' - and criticisms..........?

8 comments:

Edward Spalton said...

PLEASE,PLEASE,PLEASE do not overlook the MPs from other parties who "rebelled" and voted for a referendum. They include LABOUR MPs as well as DEMOCRATIC UNIONISTS.

In Derbyshire the LABOUR roll of honour included DENNIS SKINNER and NATASCHA ENGEL who, like Gisela Stuart, is of German descent. Natascha Engel made a very good speech in the debate. She has also, I understand, facilitated the upcoming debate on the high cost of petrol and diesel.

Just as Edward Heath needed Labour MPs to vote for the European Communities Act, so they will be needed to repeal it. Time to take a wider view than this obsession with the Conservative party alone.

WitteringsfromWitney said...

ES: It is not that I have an obsession with the Conservative Party but as Redwood raised the subject in his post it is only reasonable that I should mention it.

Dennis Skinner has been a life-long opponent of the EU concept and I readily acknowledge the fact - good for him. However, the point of the post was not to single out any particular MP but an attempt to gain a movement towards a form of democracy in which the people are the masters rather than the situation we have presently. We have to break the virtual dictatorial hold that MPs, as a grouping, have over the lives of people.

Bill said...

I don't believe that there is such a thing as a eurosceptic MP no matter what party they belong to.

There are 650 men and women in Parliament supposedly representing the will of the people who live who live in their constituencies.
This Parliament can abolish the Lisbon Treaty tomorrow if that was the will of the people who these MP's represent.

But there is no Parliamentary democracy instead there is a Party Autocracy which ensures its members and backers gain both financially and just as importantly egotistically from being members of the EU game. They don't seem to realise that their membership of the EU is tolerated rather than encouraged because they have the tax theft with which they pay the membership fee well sorted but it that matters nought.

The only two non violent ways I can see of ending this control by Party State is for the people of these islands to stop paying tax in any way they possibly can or begin to ignore the State and set up alternative local governments to administer local affairs and justice based upon the Swiss system of democracy.
Ignoring MP's, Councillors and civil servants would not only stifle their systems it would mean that 'local life' could be improved for the benefit of the locals which would hopefully make people aware that it is they who have the true power of destiny over their lives not 650 men and women sitting on green and red benches in London. It would also be very entertaining which would give everyone a lift. Life is meant to be lived happy at least I think it is.

The Boiling Frog said...

Thanks as ever Mr WfW for your kind link.

A quick repsonse if I may to Edward Spalton's comment. I can't speak for WfW but for me I concentrate more on the Tories because they are the most dishonest when it comes to this subject.

We all know largely where we are with Labour and the Lib Dems - they are pro EU, they make no secret of it. The Tories however pretend otherwise and pervert the term Euroscepptic deliberately to attract those voters basically on a lie. Judas goats as Rochard North wonderfully labelled them. That's why I turn most of my fire on them.

The Tories give the illusion that out of the 3 main parties we have a choice when it comes to the EU when in reality we don't. And it's for this reason that they are able to integrate much further.

Joseph Takagi said...

I do wonder if the likes of Redwood and Carswell are kept in the party as part of a deliberate campaign to stop UKIP growing.

If you run a barely-right-of-centre party, the last thing you want is all the people on the right going and voting UKIP and losing seats due to a vote split.

So, you keep them around and let them remain very vocal. They provide a PR message that there are sections of the Conservative Party that are Eurosceptic, and allow Tory members to think that the party might become more like that, so paying their dues hoping for that day. Despite the fact that the party is only hiring on-message Cameronites which means it never will.

Think about it on the other side: why do Labour allow the likes of Jeremy Corbyn and Diane Abbott to remain as MPs, despite being seriously off-message?

WitteringsfromWitney said...

Bill: Agree

TBF: My pleasure.

TG: You may a good point and I concur with your thinking.

----------------------------------

General comment to all who have replied and to those that may follow:

Once again it seems criticism is easy yet there have been no suggestions regarding how we rectify the defects in our democracy..........

Just saying...........

TomTom said...

how we rectify the defects in our democracy.

The defects started in 1641 when Parliament initiated a revolution against Absolutism but had to execute a king for the first time in Europe to make it fact.

The second time, in 1688 they recoiled from the thought of executing another and revealing how little they had actually achieved.

Thereafter it was the landowning classes that ran the system from The Lords until the commercial classes wanted a say.

Mass Slaughter in Mass War required the masses to have some say as recompense for total war; the corollary being mass taxation to pay for mass benefits.

The problem is that apart from Parliament being reduced for 7 years to 5 years in 1911, the institution never changed apart from overthrowing the Upper Chamber in a coup.

Parliament itself has NEVER actually been reformed and has simply assumed the Absolute Powers of a Monarch to become a Republican Tyranny with a supine, figurehead Monarch who cannot sustain her Coronation Oath nor even give Royal Assent personally.....she is simply concerned to keep her family in the position it enjoys

WitteringsfromWitney said...

TT: No problem with that which you write - bar the bit about the Monarch (being a monarchist).

Which is why I want a participatory democracy, thus negating the Absolute Powers bit.