Referism, Direct Democracy and Oblivion

In his usual Saturday op-ed piece in the Daily Telegraph, Charles Moore writes on the subjects of human rights, civil servants and David Cameron.

Moore castigates what he calls 'independent' civil servants, making the point that civil servants serve, that if they become 'independent' then exactly who are they serving and therefore have, by default, then become master. Can not the same accusation be laid at the door of our elected representatives? As with civil servants who have become 'masters', so have our elected representatives, generally, in that they uphold the belief of Edmund Burke; coupled of course with their slavish behaviour where party Whips are concerned, in the hope of gaining personal advancement.

In his castigation of civil servants, Moore then proceeds to criticise those appointed to head quangos, IPSA and other public bodies, the result of which he maintains leaves Parliament, government, those elected and the public at the mercy of the unelected. Neither does he mention that the problem is self made - after all, who exactly is it that makes those appointments? Unfortunately, Moore does not then highlight that that is surely a democratic deficit in our present system of democracy.

David Cameron may well - to quote Moore - have been suspicious of the human rights theocrats. Again, rather unfortunately, Moore fails to note that Cameron must know that the return of 'rights', as with the return of powers from the EU, can only be accomplished with a decision to cease membership of both bodies, along with the Council of Europe. Moore also fails to proffer the suggestion that perhaps it is the people living in a country who are the only ones to decide the rights to which they - and anyone visiting that country - are entitled.

In making the point that in our present system of democracy the people have little or no say in that which is done to them and supposedly on their behalf, it is also worth my linking to a post from Richard North, EU Referendum, on the subject of a report by the National Audit Office on the subject of carbon capture and storage - and the small matter of £64million that has been wasted attempting to accomplish that which Richard North states is not technically feasible.

That much is, indeed, wrong with our present system of democracy is illustrated wherein Moore questions the power of bureaucrats viz-a- viz politicians and asking just what are Ministers for - which further begs the question just what is our system of representative democracy for. On the matter of Sir Jeremy Heywood and that of who is the superior partner - politician or civil servant - it is worth reading Quentin Letts in the Spectator, if you have not already done so.

The articles by Moore, Quentin Letts and Richard North demonstrate that where our money and rights are concerned, all that politicians and civil servants do is take - we, the people who fund what is no more than a giant ponzi scheme of interconnected elements - are never asked. I am forced to suggest that without the imposition of 'referism' and direct democracy, not only will our money be assigned into oblivion - so will our rights; and thereby we, as individuals.

In brief

Once upon a time our railways were operated as separate undertakings (LNER, GWR etc) which through the process of transition became known as British Rail and then Network Rail. A further transition has occured whereby it is now known as "the rail system within the Community (now the EU). (Explanatory Notes)  Now you can see why HS2 is being imposed, that it is not a Government initiative but one that originates from Brussels and TEN-T.

David Cameron - aka Dear Leader Dav il Cam - has vowed to rein in executive pay. It is a great pity he does not vow to rein in executive power - which is why talkconstitution.net has been created. The fact that this ''news" report carries little detail or substance is not surprising - it may well be a precis of an information sheet put out by CCHQ - leads on to an aspect of journalism that I have previously covered.

Autonomous Mind posts on the reported, alleged attack by a 10-year-old boy on his teachers, the actual details of which were not covered by reports in the MSM. As AM states, this is due to (his words) a media that is "lazy, derivative and unfit for purpose , therefore ill-serving the public audience. No doubt it will fall to blogs to tell the story the media is incapable or unwilling to research and publish, and serve the public interest". That well-deserved statement can be applied to almost anything that the media reports, especially where matters EU are concerned. Apropos that last point, Richard North EU Referendum has yet another example of lax media 'reporting'.

Charles Moore, in his usual op-ed article in today's Daily Telegraph, poses the question of why have a House of Lords if there's not a single Lord left in it? He opens his article thus:

"Last year, Mr Clegg failed to persuade the British people, in a referendum, that the Alternative Vote system was the answer to their political ills. This year, he hopes to persuade both Houses of Parliament to invent a new House of Lords. He thinks the present House is an affront to the principles of openness which underpin a modern democracy."

Is not the present state of politics in this country an affront to the principles of democracy? Is not the media, with their servility to the political class, an affront to the principles of democracy?

Just asking......................

Cameron asks that we show faith

in our Christian values, according to Politics Home, whilst the BBC reports that he called for a revival of traditional Christian values to counter Britain's "moral collapse". It is indeed ironic that this exhortation comes from a man who admits to being a 'vaguely practising Christian; who wishes to counter the 'moral collapse' of our society while belonging to a class of our society who, by their decisions, have assisted in that moral collapse; that he belongs to a class of our society who should be the last to advise us on morals, especially in view of the lack thereof they have exhibited - and still do - where their own conduct is concerned.


In raising this subject Cameron is opening yet another can of worms, as he did with his idea that the rules of primogeniture should be changed - and as did Blair with his policy of devolution. How Cameron believes 'Christian values' can be imposed while at the same time accepting the Human Rights Act and all that that entails must surely mean - to coin a phrase - God only knows. Charles Moore, in his usual Saturday op-ed piece in today's Daily Telegraph, enters the debate on primogeniture with what is, for him, a reasonable article in which he poses the question whether the Government has really thought through its plans to change the rules of succession. The answer to Moore's question, on past experience, is obviously not!


That our political elite are basically the root cause of the problems we presently experience is no longer in doubt. That the dictatorial power they wield must therefore be curbed is also no longer in doubt. By what right to they change the fabric of our society; by what right to they change our constitution; by what right do they change the rules of primogeniture without the express agreement of we the people? 


Like Cameron, I too believe it is time for change - although the change I have in mind will not be one of which he, or his 'class', would approve.


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

Public opinion being led astray

The despair of those of us who continually rail about the poor standard of journalism exhibited in the media is, I believe, understandable. As an example I give you the editorial in today's Daily Telegraph, from which an extracts:

"In one sense, nothing has changed. The same EU directives and regulations that Mr Cameron so rightly objected to are still looming, even though they will – thank heaven – be fought tooth and nail. The Prime Minister has chosen a course that is bound to bring hardships and indignities, especially if the new euro-bloc imposes measures that damage the single market and our financial services industry. But yesterday’s events made clear that staying on the same old course of grudging submission to the collective will would have brought exactly the same hardships and indignities – without offering Britain the golden opportunity to redefine its relationship with Europe that so many in this country have wanted for so long."

Exactly how will EU directives and regulations be 'fought tooth and nail when 17 member states comprise a majority when voting as a caucus, which they surely must do; and when that euro-bloc will impose measures that damage this nation  which they surely will do?

When reading the letters column in the same newspaper, it is little wonder that those writing appear to have been duped as a result of the 'faux journalism' to which they respond. In support of this assertion Pixijade writes that it is a shame that 99% of the media are refusing to question the PM’s side of the story; and that his version of the events suit him quite nicely, thanks very much; no referendum, no repatriation, and a heroes welcome home. On that last point Charles Moore, in his op-ed piece in today's Daily Telegraph, writes that this is as a result of everything becoming clear to Cameron's cool mind, in that he could stave off a referendum, hold together his Coalition and win over his party. It is a great pity that Moore could not be honest and add the words "whilst retaining his own position of power and patronage". Reverting to the letters, it should be noted that at least one writer - Christopher Healy of North Ferriby - East Yorkshire, has homed in on a major problem when he asks: "Now whose aircraft carrier do we use?"

Matters are not helped when Douglas Carswell writes that we now need to make sure that the small print hammered out between now and March is not fudged - and that the new architecture to be put in place for the rest of Euroland does not emesh us. And just how are we supposed to do that? Perhaps Carswell has another 'Plan' up his sleeve - one we can but hope is a damn site better than his first attempt. Nor is it helped by the BBC allowing Heseltine to escape without any form of censure for misquoting Winston Churchill, noted here by Norman Tebbit.

To remount an ongoing hobbyhorse, of course if we had 'Referism' and 'Direct Democracy' our political elite would not be able to lie to us or ignore the wishes of the people, thus relegating us to the position of serfs - but I digress..........

Moore's the pity

In his op-ed piece in today's Daily Telegraph, Charles Moore is of the opinion that the EU's journey to ever closer union has screeched to a halt. Assuming that Moore's opinion is correct - which I don't - nowhere in his article is there any mention of the logical question that should surely follow his assertion, namely: "What happens now then?".

While the leaders of Member States continue to pour money into the ever widening maw of fiscal incompetence that is the European Union and the dream of maintaining the failure of it's euro currency, the journey to ever closer union remains very much on track.

That the charge of 'guilty' can be be laid at Cameron's door is illustrated by his belief that the euro must be maintained and that the 17 eurozone member states should integrate even further just creates another self-made problem for the chief executive of EU region UK. Andrew Grice, writing in the Independent, rather starkly expands on Cameron's self-made problem when he writes:

"The inevitable fiscal union among the euro countries will push the UK into the outer zone. British ministers fear the 17 eurozone nations will form a "caucus" which fixes the key decisions before they go to all 27 EU members. Brave talk about Britain heading the 10 second-division teams is just that; seven are committed to joining the euro. Whatever pledges are made not to exclude the "outs", the reality is that many of the rules affecting the single market, the City of London and British industry could be decided by the 17, who might not exactly have UK interests at heart."

The UK may have an opt-out from euro membership but, unfortunately, with that membership due to increase, coupled with increasing EU 'oversight' of member state's budgets, it is easy to see the situation whereby Cameron will be the one seated at a white covered table, having the riot act read to him - and being reminded that legal agreements can just as easily be 'amended'.

One day the British public - and possibly just not them, but also the public in other member states - will wake up to the fact that all this money being used to prop up a failed idea and failing currency is actually their money. When that realization finally dawns, then events really will get interesting. Earlier today I linked to a podcast involving Richard North and Christopher Booker discussing matters EU, euro and the New World Order. At the end of the discussion Richard North made the point that matters will eventually need to be resolved either by the people halting this madness through the ballot box, or the alternative will be civil wars within individual countries.

That this madness can only be prevented from ever reoccurring is by means of a move to a participatory form of government, one that as I posted earlier finally does put the master/servant relationship back to where it should be.

'The Debate' and other related matters

As I am presently experiencing difficulty in linking to the Telegraph website (all I continually receive is notices that their website is not responding) links to articles in that newspaper cannot be provided. However.....

The op-ed page in today's edition of the Daily Telegraph is taken over by two articles, one by Charles Moore and a smaller one underneath by William Hague. Moore writes about the need for a referendum on our membership of the EU, headlining his piece "The voters have been cheated for too long. Let them decide." One section stands out:

"Most people reading this column, I suspect, do not believe in government by referendum. We elect politicians to make laws on our behalf, not to keep scurrying back to ask us which laws to make. But the idea of consent is crucial to trust in the political process. For more than 20 years now, in European matters, that consent has been lacking. It has been in the interest of all political parties to make decisions which have changed our lives without offering us any electoral choice in the matter. Therefore our future consent cannot be assumed. It must be sought in writing."

That which seems to have escaped such luminaries as Charles Moore is that for decades the consent of the people to some of the laws that have been imposed on them has been lacking - and not just in the area of our membership of the EU. That political parties present manifestos, come election time, is neither here nor there as measures in those manifestos have not been implemented as promised, but have been amended thereby imposing laws for which the people were never given the opportunity of voting. Likewise there are some laws implemented by events, measures that were not in any party's manifesto, on which again the people were never given the opportunity to vote. Moore is contradicting himself when he complains that politicians have changed our lives without our consent, but then appears to be against referendums per se. In the same piece Moore writes that we should treat William Hague with a degree of tolerance because it is difficult being a minister, especially in a coalition; and that 'Europe' is a particularly painful subject for the Conservative Party. Stating that we should not insist Cameron and Hague vote for the motion under debate out of respect for the aforementioned 'difficulties' just illustrates that Charles Moore is part of the problem - he is a member of the Westminster Bubble!

Turning to William Hague's piece, he continues his stupid and illogical mantra of being in Europe but not being governed by it. He writes that as a Conservative (really?) he wishes to repatriate powers, as mentioned in his party's general election manifesto. William Hague is presented to us as a 'wise politician', one who 'knows' all that needs to be known.; one who can be trusted to make the right decisions. If Hague is 'so clever' just what is it the man does not understand about the process of acquis communitaire, something embedded in the treaties? Does he not understand that once the European Union assumes competence over any area of government it cannot be returned to member states. As I have written previously, repatriation of even one power will never be achieved as once the UK succeeded, then just about every other member state would be jumping on the bandwagon, the result being disintegration of the European Union - and that the EU elite just ain't going to allow. In any even, if Hague is so adamant about the supposed benefits of our membership of the EU, why not publish a cost/benefit analysis? The response to that question by our political elite is that the benefits are obvious - well if they are so 'obvious', prove it chaps.

Hague also writes about the need to ensure eurozone integration does not allow countries in the single currency to impose decisions on countries outside it. Just why does he not understand that the figure of 17 comprises a majority in a total figure of 27 - or is simple maths not one of his strong points? That financial control of all member states is the reported aim of Jose Manuel Barosso is touched upon in John Redwood's latest post. Once again, just what is it about a "single coherent framework for the better economic governance based on the community method" that Hague does not understand and as such continues to maintain that we are not governed by the EU? Reverting to the benefits of our country's membership of the EU, Hague writes:

"The ability to lead European countries to a united position, as with sanctions on Iran and Syria, strengthens Britain's power in the world. Even obscure directives can have benefits: directive 2009/147/EC prevents the slaughter of our garden birds as they migrate over the Mediterranean."

And the prevention of the slaughter of our garden birds flying over the Mediterranean is reason enough for our being a chattel of the European Union? Sheesh, Hague is more of an idiot than I first thought.

On the subject of the forthcoming debate on Monday next, Autonomous Mind posts on this subject, mentioning the Eustice amendment. As I posted a day or two ago, this motion is a Backbench Business Committee motion and as such needs to be debated as written - yet few have 'picked up' on this point. Speaker Bercow proclaims himself a champion of the backbenches and it is unlikely he would allow any amendment or alternative motion. To do so would mean him subjecting himself to accusations of hypocrisy, let alone any accusation of being a 'government tool' and that of ignoring the will of MPs and their own committee. Turning to another aspect of AM's post, I refer to the letter sent to Eustice by Bernard Jenkin in which the latter advises he is against an In/Out referendum. That statement immediately, in my book, transfers Jenkin from the 'eurosceptic' camp into the 'europlastic' camp. Just who the hell is Bernard Jenkin to allow his personal view to interfere in how and where he casts his vote? But then Jenkin is but doing what all MPs do - namely having achieved the position of MP promptly then deciding that only they know best and to hell with the views of the people they are meant to represent.

Another interesting aspect of this forthcoming debate and the questions on the motion proposed by the Backbench Business Committee comes with the publication of a poll by YouGov, one referred to by James Forsyth in this post from the Coffee House:

"The poll results also demonstrate that only a small percentage of the public would vote for the country’s current set-up with the European Union if they had the chance. Only 15 per cent would vote to stay in, compared to 28 per cent who would vote to leave, while 47 per cent would plump for renegotiation. If forced to chose between In or Out, the public splits 31 to 52."

Notice how 'renegotiation' has achieved a substantial following and one has to wonder just how many of that following actually understand that the option they most favour just ain't available, or why? Yet again we see how political spin and the failure to be honest with the electorate achieves just exactly what the politicians want, namely the pursuance of an unachievable policy but one that effectively closes further debate on the subject. On this subject of 'renegotiation', it is worth reading this, which Richard North wrote way back in 2008 and which reaffirms my previous comment about why renegotiation is not an option.

As an aside, Ian Parker-Joseph has announced the birth of his fifth grandson and remarks, in a reply in his comment section, that he fights for his country, a fight previously carried out by his father and grandfather. He ends by saying that he will never give up that fight and would wish to seem them all hang first. In offering my congratulations I suggested that as part of the celebrations perhaps we should being the hanging now.

The devil lies in the detail

"Nothing is as it seems. Black can appear white when the light is blinding but white loses all lustre at the faintest sign of darkness." 

Christopher Pike (Evil Thirst)

It would appear the Coalition's proposed reforms to planning laws is starting to draw some opposition, with Greg Clark taking to the airwaves in defence of the proposals and being 'interviewed' in The Times (£). The Daily Telegraph has an article by Louise Gray in which she writes that: "The draft national planning framework states that local authorities should identify “suitable areas for regeneration” where it will be easier to get planning permission for wind farms". For those readers interested in the detail, the draft national planning framework can be read here, together with an 'easy to read' summary here. Needless to say Tim Montgomerie, Conservative Home, has weighed in with an article here, linking to this article by Charles Moore in his usual Saturday Daily Telegraph op-ed piece.

There may well be a wish for 'localism' to play a part but the fact that the planning reforms are being sold as 'local people deciding what is built in their locale' is to a certain degree false because, returning to the extract above from Louise Gray's article, this from the draft national policy framework needs to be taken into account:

"The Localism Bill will place a new Duty to Co-operate on councils. The Duty means that local councils should to work together, with other public bodies, on planning issues that impact beyond local boundaries. The draft Framework puts into practice the Duty to Co-operate." (Emphasis mine)

So much for local people deciding what is built in their locale and any idea of localism. We then read, on the subject of neighbourhood planning that:

"If approved by a local referendum (vote), the neighbourhood plan will need to be put into force by the local council."

Yet in the Localism Bill, on the subject of local referenda, we find:

"56 (4) If the authority decides to take no steps to give effect to the result, it must publish that decision in such manner as it thinks appropriate together with the reasons for that decision."

It is logical to assume that member state governments are in constant dialogue with the EU Commission in order that any policy they may wish to introduce does not conflict with those of the EU, or those that may be being considered. Consequently it would appear that all the Coalition have been doing with their localism and planning changes has had to take into account this, from which:

"The European Commission (EC) is actively driving the development of energy infrastructure in EU Member States. However, projects given priority status under the Trans-European Energy Networks (TEN-E) guidelines frequently suffer delays. In most cases, these delays occur during the permitting procedure in the country in question. According to project developers in Member States, the main reasons are strong opposition to projects from stakeholders and complex national permitting procedures. Therefore, if the goals of the EU's 2020 scenario are to be met, stakeholder opposition to prioritised projects needs to be mitigated and the effectiveness of permitting procedures improved."(Emphasis mine)

Update: Further to the quote in Louise Gray's article that: "A separate analysis by the Department of Energy and Climate Change says the reforms are essential to “deliver the infrastructure we need to reduce our carbon emissions", this article has just appeared in the Express: "Were ministers open and honest enough to tell us how much money will be sacrifi ced on the altar of carbon reduction then at least voters could take a view on that trade-off and could decide whether or not it’s worth the proverbial candle. But outrageously the Government is refusing to divulge its offi cial estimate of the GDP sacrifi ce required to reach its ultimate target of a 42 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2020."