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