Monday, 23 January 2012

'Erewigo' - again!

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.
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?"
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 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'............


TomTom said...

They were too slick for their own good. Postwar the British thought they would tie everyone in knots and emasculate Germany and other States in a web of external obligations forgetting that they would bind themselves. It was easy when Britain and France controlled the UN before their colonies got General Assembly votes.....

The ICC in The Hague is the latest stupidity with Blair rushing headlong to put British soldiers in jeopardy by criminalising them in military actions he criminally sanctioned but skipped liability.

PeterCharles said...

I can only re-iterate what I have said before; post WW2 there was a consensus among western politicians/establishments that Social Democracy was the only viable political alternative to placate potentially rebellious and definitely fractious populations, that nationalism and 'popular' or direct democracy were inevitably dangerous precursors to further war and that international co-operation and one world government were essential. The EU was conceived as the best option for a test bed since their shattered governments, economies and infrastructure needed to be remade in any event.

The USSR and the iron curtain put somewhat of a block on things and slowed progress through the nominated one world government body of the UN. It is telling that all the UN programs, UNESCO, etc. are hotbeds of social democratic activism, as is the ICC, of course. I noticed an interesting statistic today, even in the USA, that supposed bastion of personal responsibility and arms length state, 56% of the population are in receipt of some form of state welfare (it is also worth noting that only around 14% of the population is classed as coloured). In other words, even the USA has become another Social Democratic 'paradise'.

TomTom said...

The EEC was formed in 1957 the same year the US pushed through German Rearmament inside NATO against French wishes, and the same year the Deutsche Mark became convertible.

It was simply the means of keeping Germany under French control, and it was enhanced by the 1963 Elysee Treaty between Paris and Bonn.

Germany was occupied by foreign troops between 1919 and 1930 and from 1945 onwards. The German People were denied Article 146 of the Basic Law, the right to determine their own Constitution in a free plebiscite.

The EU was designed to strap Germany down like Gulliver in Lilliput just as NATO was designed to keep the Russians out, Americans in, and Germans down.

The game was Power not Sentimentalism

WitteringsfromWitney said...

TT: Is not power the reason people go into politics? It is that diminuation of personal power that DD is designed to prevent. As PC stated the politicians will argue to the cows come home that it is a dangerous system for one reason and one reason alone - DD negates their own careers!

PC: As nearly always I can but agree with that which you write.

Antisthenes said...

I would say that true democracy does not stop at democratic process to sign up to membership but also that that which we become a member of continues to remain under democratic control. Currently we have neither.

WitteringsfromWitney said...

A: True and that point will be addresse in the two papers I am doing for TC.

Anonymous said...

You ask who are the people behind all this, well John I'Sullivan points us in the right direction on a recent blog post. The gist of it is the Fed have sold the world twice over and 147 totally interlocked corporates own most of the world's wealth. Check it out, outrageous is much too small a word:

WitteringsfromWitney said...

Anon: Thanks for the link.