People power

Richard North, EU Referendum, posts about an interesting referendum which was recently held in Switzerland, under the requirements of their direct form of democracy and while expanding on that theme very kindly links to an article of mine. That the Swiss rejected yet more 'time off' is probably due to their inherent work ethic, a characteristic which our politicians have almost managed to breed out of us.
For those readers not acquainted with the idea of direct democracy perhaps it is necessary to repeat that the matters for which the Swiss federal government (comprising of just 7 people -yes just 7) is limited in that which they are 'responsible' for, ie they have a limited portfolio. Any one of their proposals, within that limited portfolio, can be 'challenged' by the people by means of the ability to call for a referendum. All matters outside the federal 'government' portfolio are handled by Swiss cantons or communes resulting in the people of Switzerland actually having 'power' to decide the 'internal' course those within the 'locale' wish to follow - along with the course they wish their country to take internationally.
Here I must, perforce, digress slightly to explain that while Richard North and I are, I believe, in complete agreement on 'Referism' (the need for politicians to ask for our agreement to supply the funds they require - be that nationally or locally) we diverge slightly in our views of how 'deep' the requirement of direct democracy is needed. Having said that, consider:
Suppose you, the electorate, had the ability to control the 'proposals' of 'government', locally and/or nationally; suppose you, the electorate, had the ability to decide what changes were made to the constitution of your country; suppose you, the electorate, had the ability to decide by whom and how you were 'governed' - and whether that should be by you or some supranational 'foreign' body; suppose you, the electorate, had the ability to decide what treaties your country entered into; suppose you the electorate, had the ability to decide whether your country should go to war; suppose you, the electorate, had the ability to decide the education system you wished your children to receive; suppose you, the electorate, had the ability to decide who can and who cannot remain in your country; suppose you, the electorate, had the ability to decide what type of law & order you wanted; suppose you, the electorate, had the ability to decide who should and should not receive any form of state benefit; suppose you, the electorate, had the ability to decide who can and who cannot receive citizenship of your country; suppose you, the electorate had the ability to decide.... but need |I continue?
Which would you, the electorate, rather have? The ability, as detailed in the preceding paragraph, or the present system wherein a select few decide what you can and cannot have?
Bit of a 'no-brainer' is it not?


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

The 'Ugly Bug' Ball

Mary 'Hairyball', MEP, complains on her blog about the continual degradation of the female image by the Sun, the Star and the Sport. Hairy Mary states that the majority of women and a 'significant' number of men object to 'Page 3' - and just how 'significant' is the word 'significant', Mary? Like her most physical and most prominent female attribute, I can but suggest Mary H has resorted to 'navel gazing'.


Mary H writes that girls are humiliated by their peers in front of a boy they may fancy - well, Mary H, let me tell you that we boys also suffer humiliation in front of boys, although to be fair we boys tend to humiliate each other by inches rather than the 'full monty' in which girls tend to indulge. If we boys can get over it, why not you girls - after all, Mary H, you do believe in equality do you not?


There is of course the point that Mary H would not in any way be attempting to restrict how anyone should be able to earn a living? There is of course the point that if women are prepared to 'bare all' or 'partly bare all'; is that not their choice? There is of course the point that if actresses can 'bare all' on celluloid in the name of 'cinematic art', is that not all Page 3 girls are doing, in the name of photographic art?


Mary, Mary, why thou so contrary?