Only yesterday, in a post, I wrote:
"The plight of our country is further compounded by deficits in our present system of democracy, namely representative democracy, which amounts to democratised dictatorship, in that elected politicians are able to enrol our country in agreements and treaties over which we the people have no voice.A post from PJC Jounal - IPJ on Politics followed by a post from Richard North, EU Referendum, alerts us to what without question will be an impending directive from Brussels - one which is set to change and no doubt increase the scale of repossessions by lenders within the housing market.
That 'power' which politicians have taken invariably leads them into a situation from which there is no escape - witness membership to the ECHR. It is that 'power' that has allowed our nation to be subsumed into the European Union - and, as with the ECHR, led us to be 'governed' by forces outside our control. All the above begs the question why we allow a government to exist that is unable to govern?"
That this decision actually originates from what may be termed a division of 'a global government' (follow RN's links) firstly begs the question why the hell we are so concerned about EU membership when it would seem that it is now obvious that there is an even larger threat to national independence in existence whose intention is the imposition of world-wide totalitarianism? Just who are 'these people' (they are not only comprised of politicians), members of such organisations as the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, to what 'organisations' do they actually belong? Whom exactly 'controls' the secretive Bilderberg Group - and to what 'organisations' do they belong?
For those, like me, concerned with the sovereignty of our country, the problem takes on a dimension of unimaginable proportions. To give but one example: the United Nations was set up in 1945, replacing the League of Nations, primarily to permit dialogue between nations with differences and thereby, hopefully, stop further war (something in which they have been highly successful - not) yet now stick their fingers into many, many other matters such as economic development and social progress. That is but one mass of agreements which would require renegotiation if the UK was to become truly independent - and there are many other such organisations (eg ECHR) that would require a similar process. Membership of such organisations have all been 'signed' by politicians without any process of said agreements being sanctioned by the people - yet there are many like me that maintain the people are sovereign, ie the masters of their own destiny and that of their country.
Judging by the 'traffic' on Twitter - and the blogosphere in general - it would appear people are concerned, for example, about the polling figures of political parties; they are concerned about who is better placed to 'run' the UK; Cameron or MilibandE. In view of the foregoing, I am forced to return to my original question, namely what is the point of a government that cannot govern? That question then raises another: what chance do those of us, concerned about our country, have when pitted against forces whose 'strength' we know not? There are some, like me, who believe that the fairest and most logical form of democracy is direct democracy, so - regardless of one's views on that suggestion and regardless of any form of democracy - how can any system function when those involved, be they politicians or bureaucrats, may well have other 'allegiances'. That such individuals are able to 'operate' is due simply to the present indifference of the people in their respective countries - ie, there is a lack of will-power amongst the people to take an interest or voice their opposition.
Perhaps we should just 'curl up and die'? History tells us that, eventually, in all dictatorial or totalitarian situations people do finally come to their senses and exercise that 'will' - consequently there can only be one answer to that question: NEVER!
Just a few initial 'musings' - or 'witterings'............