The House of Commons used to be the place where the laws of this land were made - and unmade - where decisions on who could enter this country and who could not were made; where decisions on whether any individual should be 'escorted off the premises', were made. That the House of Commons can no longer do that is illustrated by the statement made by Theresa May on the matter of Abu Qatada. For May to stand up and in effect admit that Qatada should be deported but cannot because she no longer has the power to to that is not just an embarrassment for her but also for this country.
That the House of Commons is now no more than a talking shop is illustrated by May's statement; by Dominic Raab's complaint that the decision undermines public protection; and by Cash's plea that the Human Rights Act needs to be amended. Instead of whining that Qatada can't be deported; instead of complaining that the decision undermines public protection; instead of pleading that the Human Rights Act needs amending, perhaps these three politicians might attempt to do something about it.
It is said that actions speak louder than words - and by heavens have we not had bucket loads of words from our politicians. Having had a surfeit of the latter, hows about a tad of the former? If they have no intention of providing the former, perhaps they should 'zip it' in respect of the latter? What is the point of a politician who states that a situation is unacceptable - which is what May said - and then not being able to do owt about it? Why are we paying him/her a salary, funding a second home and paying their expenses? Why did we elect them in the first place?
Note also how Politics Home presents this news and the words used - we are informed "May blasts Qatada bail ruling". How about one media outlet, at least, making the point that the country is fed up with whinging by politicians and that it would love them to, in modern parlance, 'grow a pair' and actually decide to do something, to restore our independence where we could decide who stays and who goes.
How about we get rid of - or fire, using AK47s if necessary - the present crowd in the House of Commons (with one or two exceptions) and choose another lot? With the proviso that failure to carry out our wishes will result in a quick trip to a wall? Lets face it, there's nothing that brings results quicker than a concentration of the mind - is there?
Change of URL
13 years ago
4 comments:
I favour the "Anglo-Saxon" method. Unpopular rulers had their throats slashed, their wives raped, their children enslaved and their houses torched. A little "direct democracy" like that would soon put our country right.
"How about we get rid of - or fire, using AK47s if necessary - the present crowd in the House of Commons....."
No. I've got futures in piano wire and lamposts.
Apparently UK citizens can be denied access to the USA because their use of British English idiom on social networks offends US sensibilities.
One would have thought that entering the UK on a false passport would be reason enough to deport someone.
A sovereign nation shouldn't need to justify the removal of any non-citizen from within its boundaries.
IH:? Tad drastic - what?
TGE: Fear not, your investment is safe. We should leave enough to ensure you get your money back at least.
Anon: Got a link to that first para? I seem to have missed that snippet.
Post a Comment