'The Plan' for direct democracy.........

Daniel Hannan and Douglas Carswell are 'big' on direct democracy, in fact they have written quite a few pamphlets on the subject, whilst also publishing their 'tome', one entitled "The Plan".

If those two politicians really believe in that which they espouse, they surely will not be 'backward in coming forward' to endorse this - will they?


All things considered and bearing in mind that which they promote, how can they argue against:

"1. A Codified Constitution for the UK, based upon the Bill of Rights, the Magna Carta.....

2. To clearly define the limitations of Government.

3. To set out an Operating Convention for Government, based upon the Swiss model, including referism and localism. A model of government where decisions are taken at the lowest possible level and fed up, rather than from the center and fed down. This will also encourage the rise of independent representatives as the party system looses both its power and influence, as that power is reclaimed by the people to whom it belongs, the public."

Well, chaps............? 

Opening up a pro-eu(er)

Or, perhaps, reading the 'phile' of a pro-eu(er) - in one particular case. My attention is drawn to two articles that have appeared today; one in the Times (£), the other on the website of Public Service Europe, both of which contain 'irregularities'.


In the first, entry of which I have not due to the paywall, it is understood that Roland Rudd who is chairman of Business for New Europe - and who in the past was one of those who believed that this country should have joined the euro at its inception - argues that should Britain leave the EU and then forge a membership similar to that of Norway it too would be the subject of 'fax-machine diplomacy. Perhaps Rudd should be directed to posts by Richard North, here and here.  


Digressing slightly it seems that the likes of Hannan and Farage, amongst others, are 'fixated' with the idea that the only alternative available, should Britain exit the European Union, is membership of the European Economic Area (EEA). As an alternative, however, might not an arrangement such as the Swiss have - of bilateral agreements -not be better? Even though such negotiations may take time to complete, Britain's position as a market, an economy and bearing in mind the potential to the EU of any subsequently agreed 'contributions' must carry a great deal of weight.


Whilst on the subject of Norway I believe it correct to say that only just over 3.5% of Norwegians are unemployed, inflation is circa 2.5% cent and debt /deficit levels are almost the only ones in Europe that come anywhere near the Maastricht criteria, coupled with the facts that Norway export more per capita to the EU from outside that organisation than Britain does from inside, whist their trade with the EU is in surplus, whereas ours is in deficit.


Time dictates that I move on to "Nucleus" (building influence through Europe) and the article written by a Director, one Matthew Lewis, linked to above. Where to start? In fact there are so many 'irregularities' in this piece, one written by someone who appears to belong in a kindergarten, that I can't be bothered to even start - go read it for yourselves! Suffice to say, I will pick-up on one statement he makes, namely "We cannot operate as a Switzerland or a Norway, it is not in our nature" as it immediately begs the questions of why and why not? Bearing in mind the statistics quoted above, if it is not in our nature, following his 'reasoning'(?) then perhaps it would be to our own good as a nation that we changed our nature. That we have been for ages a 'trading nation' and have survived as such seems to have escaped him, something he would know had his education been better than it obviously was. Lewis' statement that "we cannot operate as a Switzerland...." illustrates that this is yet another 'robot' imprisoned in the 'current political bubble' because it is obvious that in making that statement it has not crossed his mind to think about our system of democracy. That Lewis writes in the vein he does is not surprising as he is a committed 'euro-realist'. Digressing slightly again, as their 'About' section is woefully short of information I have emailed them to ask how long they have been in existence, whether it is long enough that they have annual accounts and reports - and if so why they are not readily available on their website; if not and they have only recently been formed, from whence and from whom came their funding for start-up.


As I have said previously, if, some time in the future, there is to be a public debate on our membership of the EU it behoves politicians of all parties to tell us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the unvarnished truth where matters EU are concerned - and the same exhortation applies to anyone else who wishes to influence public opinion!




Afterthought for Master Lewis: An alternative viewpoint from a 'business leader'.

Why the EU is an economic mess (2) (mea culpa)

In the preceding post, of the same title, I referred to a video link by Daniel Hannan to a speech he made in the EU Parliament, the video being noted as having been posted on youtube by Hannan on 28th November 2011. A lesson has been learnt in that when posting it is imperative to 'follow through' on the subject in the initial post; Hannans words 'the last commission' should have been sufficient to set me off on a journey of discovery, so this post is a 'mea cupla' in that respect

Richard North, EU Referendum, has kindly supplied links showing that what Hannan did was to 'regurgitate' old news as 'new' - presumably in an attempt of which all politicians are guilty, namely of showing himself in a 'good light' and thus preserving the intention of every politician's intention for 'self-aggrandisement'. As Richard points out in the comments on the preceding post, he raised this same subject at the time the original report was published and followed it up, here, two years later.

To repeat; lesson learnt, Richard - thank you.

Why the EU is an economic mess

In quoting from this video, I would hate readers to get the impression that Daniel Hannan is, one again, 'flavour of the month'; however it seems that the nearest thing to an official cost/benefit analysis of EU membership has been conducted.

In the last Commission Verheugen carried out a survey of the cost of European regulations which found that the net impact was 600billion euros per annum. The Commission's own figures of the benefits of the single market are 120billion euros per annum. As they say: Go do the maths!

As an afterthought, I wonder if the benefits included the fiddling of trade figures?

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

Democracy is not the periodic right to make a cross on a ballot paper

So spoke Daniel Hannan in a debate on 17th May 2011, a debate entitled "Germany no longer needs Europe, the dream is over". Yet that is precisely what our present form of democrcy in this country permits us - no more, no less - and one with which Hannan, with his cohort Carswell, would wish us to continue with their ideas set out in 'The Plan'. Even Ukip, a party that believes and has in its name the word 'Independence' is party to the continuance of the premise the people should be governed, albeit allowing referendums

Regular readers will know that of late I have been 'banging-on' about what I call a participatory form of democracy and this is a subject I first raised on 18th May 2010, following the formation of the Coalition. Unfortunately at the time it attracted no comments. From that post a few extracts:

"Initially, let us consider the form of democracy under which we now live - what may be called 'representative' or indirect, democracy. It works like this: every four or five years political parties present to their electorate a complicated list of proposals, called a manifesto. This document contains some items we like and also some we don't like - and those proposals are worded in such a loose 'form' as to be virtually worthless - yet we are forced to choose one party over others........

The present British Parliament is an odd body in that it claims 'legislative surpremacy' when it suits it, yet is supposed to be subservient to the people. In fact the only time Parliament accepts subordination to the people is when it comes to the people for the people to exercise their periodic right to choose a new parliament. In the intervening periods it practices what I have in the past termed 'democratised dictatorship', in that Parliament decides what laws will be passed, often bearing no relation to those proposed in the governing party's manifesto including some laws that were not even mentioned........


'Representative' democracy, it can be argued, is bad both for the elected representatives and their electorate. Elected representatives only too often conceal from the electorate what they are doing with their power and become corrupted by that power - witness the last New Labour government 'gerrymandering' by allowing in unlimited immigration on the assumption that most immigrants will vote for them; and the new Liberal Conservative government attempting to change the rules by which Parliament can be dissolved, neither of which two 'ploys' were contained in their respective manifestos. Witness also the corruption of those Members of Parliament who 'twisted' and 'bent' the rules governing their expenses and in so doing made capital gains in the property markets by means of what is generally accepted as 'misuse of taxpayer's money'. For the electorate, it means they become 'divorced' from democracy with no means of questioning and correcting their elected representatives behaviour and decisions. Because Parliament only subordinates itself to the will of the electorate every four or five years, in between times the electorate grows increasing cynical and disinterested in politics.

So what is the alternative to 'representative', or indirect, democracy? The answer, quite simply, is to take the 'in' out and consider 'direct' democracy. Direct democracy uses referendum and 'initiatives' to supply direct democracy. A true referendum or initiative is one which is put to the voters whether the government of the day wants it or not and it is through this means that the people control the government and negates the situation, as at present, whereby the government controls the people. The big difference between indirect and direct democracy is that the voters do not merely vote every few years to elect a Prime Minister and government and then leave it to them to decide their future, until they have the next opportunity. Under direct democracy there is still a Prime Minister and government, however at any given moment voters who have collected the requisite support can insist that a law proposed by the government, or elected representatives, be submitted to the electorate for judgement in a referendum. By utilising the 'initiative' aspect of direct democracy it is even possible for the electorate to submit proposals for a new law, one that may not appeal to the government or even appear in their manifesto. By both referendum and initiative the electorate stay in command of politics between elections and not just on a once-every-x-years basis. Direct democracy also encourages participation in politics by the electorate and thereby negates the apathy all to prevalent today.

To those sceptics that say direct democracy would never work and that people don't want it, one has to ask how the sceptics know that. It has never been put to the electorate; it is debatable whether the electorate even know another method of democracy exists...." 

Let us consider three basic facts on which democracy is based.

1. Political authority is derived from the people - government only exists with the consent of the people.

2. 'Rights' are not granted to the people by government - 'Rights' already belong to the people from the moment of their birth.

3. The people have the sole and exclusive right and power to govern themselves in any area not delegated to their government. (Note the words 'not delegated to their government')

Both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison warned that if governments ever became the sole and exclusive arbiter of the extent of its own power then that power would continuously grow - regardless of elections or separation of power.

Decade after decade, we the people have been voting one lot of politicians out in the hope that a new lot will be different and yet decade after decade government's powers continue to grow and the people's liberties continue to diminish. It doesn't matter who has been Prime Minister or what political party has been in government the growth of powers assumed by government has continued.

Here's a thought, perhaps we, the people, should write a manifesto for the country and then see which of the political parties were prepared to honour and enact it in full. Those parties that did not feel able to meet the required criteria then need not put up a candidate, thus saving themselves one shed load of money - and us the problem of listening to a load of meaningless crap! Consider this - when was the last time any Member of Parliament, or Prospective Parliamentary Candidate, actually asked you, as one of their constituents, what you wished to see in their manifesto? No? I thought not - they are too busy telling us what their party will decide we will be allowed to do.

And therein, dear reader, lies all the arguments why a change is required to our system of democracy; why the Albion Alliance is undertaking the initiative that it is; why membership of the European Union is not in this country's best interests; and why we presently live under a form of 'periodically renewed' dictatorship - albeit one supposedly democratised.

Democracy being sacrificed?

The lead editorial in today's Daily Telegraph immediately calls into question whether the writer actually possess any brain cells whatsoever - it is headlined: "Democracy is being sacrificed in Europe". Was not democracy sacrificed when the United Kingdom ceded governance to the European Union and its forerunners? Was not democracy sacrificed whereby the original referendum on the EEC was 'rigged'? Was not democracy sacrificed when all political parties in the UK promised to hold a referendum and then reneged on those promises? Was not democracy sacrificed when van Rompuy and Ashton were appointed - not elected? Was democracy not sacrificed when van Rompuy declared, talking about Italy, that what that country needed was reform, not elections? Was not democracy sacrificed when two elected Heads of State were removed by a cabal who were not elected by either state?

Daniel Hannan posts, asking the question who speaks for the majority in Europe and informing us of a meeting of the Alliance of European Conservatives and Reformists, of which he is Secretary-General. He ends his post:

"Who, then, speaks for the millions who reject the loans-for-austerity racket? Who speaks for those who must watch their future being sold in order to sustain the euro? Who speaks for the over-taxed, the taken-for-granted, the lied-to, the ripped-off, the ignored? We do, my friends. We do."

Setting to one side that the title of Secretary-General would seem to have 'Politburo' connotations, the most obvious question to raise is who asked Daniel Hannan to speak for us when we are quite capable of speaking for ourselves? The fact that we have yet to be consulted - and consequently have not yet spoken - should be noted by Hannan and his political cronies, because when we do eventually speak he may well not like that which he hears!

Roger Helmer (3)

Today the news broke that Roger Helmer is to resign as an MEP, effective 31st December 2011, citing amongst his reasons:

"As with any major decision, this is driven by a number of factors.  Some might say that it is high time I stood aside for a younger man.  For myself, I think that twelve-and-a-half years banging my head against the same brick wall in Brussels is perhaps long enough.  And I should certainly like to see more of my three fine grandsons. 
But it would be disingenuous to deny that my decision is dictated in part by my increasing disillusion with the attitudes of the Conservative Party.  I am finding it ever more difficult to defend the policies of the Coalition, not only on my key issues of Europe, and of climate and energy, but on a range of other matters besides. 
I will have more to say about this in coming days."

Reporting his resignation, the BBC carries this quote:

"You reach a point, in all honesty, where you cannot sit here and say I am a Tory MEP but I disagree with nine-tenths of what the party are saying.......The only honest thing to do is to say you quit."

Like Autonomous Mind, although not in as great a detail nor extent, I too have been critical of Roger Helmer for his continued membership of the Conservative Party. There are those who, like The Boiling Frog, take a more cynical view and one to which I tend to lean myself. There are also those who immediately put fingers to keyboard with the statement that it is inevitable, in their view, Helmer will join Ukip, even though the man has stated that he hopes to remain a member of his present party.

Helmer's statement to the BBC does rather show up the hypocritical behaviour of his colleagues in Westminster, who professing to have views similar to him, regularly troop through the voting lobbies at Westminster supporting their party in any matter EU! It also does place Daniel Hannan in an awkward position, does it not?

As a final thought, how many people towards the end of their lives recant and admit their sins to a higher authority (there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents)? As a magnanimous gesture, is that not how Helmer's resignation should be accepted?

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

Elected Dictatorship

It is, I hope, well known by now that I consider our present form of democracy nothing but that of an elected dictatorship - or as some commenters on this blog tend to term it, an oligarchy. For politicians today to repeat the mantra that they represent their constituent's views and are likewise elected to serve those same constitutents is a lie and consequently a sham.

Without rehashing old posts to the point of boredom, we are all aware that MPs are constrained in their voting patterns by party whips; that they insist on the ability to vote with their conscience - in other words, how they feel about a particular subject - rather than voting how the majority of their constituents feel; that constitutents have no means of recalling their MP to be held to account; that they consider Parliament "Sovereign"; and the 'killer point', that as I was informed by my MP, who also happens to be the Prime Minister the current elected dictator: no matter what my personal 'local' problem/grievance - if it conflicts with 'national policy' then I may as well forget it.

Many words have been written about the need for an English Parliament and a resolution to the West Lothian Question - with an impassioned speech reported at the recent Ukip conference -  thus enabling only voting by MPs on matters that affect their own constituencies. What, exactly, would the creation of an English Parliament do - other than preserve the status quo of elected dictatorship? Political parties, including Ukip, talk about localism, yet at the very heart of their ideas of localism lies central control and the belief that MPs are elected to rule. As with the EU, where national 'governments' do no more than implement EU law, so all local authorities do is implement central government decrees - and that is localism? Just what exactly do local councillors do other than applying knuckles to foreheads, in the manner of all good politicians, whilst collecting their allowances?

As I have, no doubt, 'bored to tears' readers with my rants about HS2, politicians and their lack of principle and honour; I trust you will bear with me for yet another example of the latter. I would refer to David Cameron's infamous article in The Sun newspaper, one in which he gave a cast-iron guarantee on a referendum. Little noticed, I believe, is another classic quote, one in which I have made two small amendments:

"One of the great challenges we face is rolling back the tide of bureaucracy that is drowning our country in regulations and forms. And you can't do that without targeting one of the main sources of this bureaucracy — Brussels. Because it is Europe that ties our businesses up in red tape. And it is Europe that ties the hands of our courts. We won't be able to deal with any of this unless we have a referendum. The final reason we must have a vote is trust. Gordon Brown David Cameron talks about "new" politics. But there's nothing "new" about breaking your promises to the British public. It's classic Labour.Cameron."

Which is why Richard North and I, with no collusion whatsoever, are the only two bloggers* - to my knowledge - that are prepared to put our heads over the parapet and suggest something different.

* Don't even mention Carswell and Hannan with their 'Plan' as it is but continuance of the status quo!

David Cameron's history - if only......

When one decides to delve back into history, it is surprising what you find. Unfortunately, due to my having only begun in December 2009, my personal 'reference book' is rather minuscule when compared to others. Richard North, EU Referendum, has very kindly sourced some of his material for me - my thanks, Richard.

David Cameron was appointed leader of his party on 6th December 2005 and has always maintained his eurosceptism burns brightly within him - which is rather odd really when you travel back in time. Digressing slightly, readers will be aware of the novel 1984 by George Orwell in which Winston Smith works in the Ministry of Truth where he is employed to change passages in past newspaper articles in such a way as to make them congruent with current party doctrine - something similar oddly enough appears to be happening today.

On the basis of one speech, made without notes at the Conservative Leadership Conference in October 2005, Cameron attained the leadership of his party. Videos of this speech were available on youtube, yet strangely they appear to have been censored  for reasons of copyright, which is also odd bearing in mind the text of that speech can still be read. A year earlier at the Conservative Party Conference, during a fringe meeting Cameron spent five minutes offering his views on how his party would win the next general election. Richard North posted on this with a link to the Conservative Party website, a link that also seems unavailable - quelle surprise.

The same month an edition of Question Time featured a panel comprising Nigel Farage, Patricia Hewitt, Jody Dunn, Matthew Parris and...... David Cameron. For some time now we have heard nothing from the Conservative Party but talk of repatriation of powers from the EU; we have had Hague talking about it and Useless Eustice forming his pressure group, a group presumably formed with Cameron's agreement, to further that aim. I have always maintained that repatriation of powers from Brussels was 'pie-in-the-sky' as the EU only has one aim, which is 'ever closer union', coupled with the fact that were just one power repatriated to any member state it would open a Pandora's Box whereby other member states would apply. In this QT programme both Cameron and Parris were of the belief that repatriation of powers was possible, citing the example of Margaret Thatcher who, as Richard North chronicles here, had an 'ace in the hole'. What is more important though is, as Nigel Farage stated in this programme and luckily noted by Richard North in this post, any repatriation of powers would require the agreement of the remaining member states.

Returning to Cameron's election to the leadership one has to ask just what those who voted for him were thinking. His leadership bid speech contained his aversion to the party moving to the right, he only mentioned Europe once and not in the context of EU membership and if one rereads his speech the content is so bland as to be forgettable. Just a year earlier he had been guilty of espousing the party line and then publicly attempted to be disingenuous by linking repatriation of powers to the success of Margaret Thatcher's rebate 'handbagging'. The failure of his party to secure an outright majority in 2010 may well be attributable to the fact that by then the majority of Conservative members had realised the gigantic error they had made in choosing Cameron and consequently 'did not go for it', 'did not seize it', 'did not fight for it' which resulted in 'someone or something denying them'.

Were a referendum held on our membership of the EU and which resulted in 'Out', what follows is not that simple, as Richard North explains in this post. Back in 2004 Cameron knew this, back in 2005 when he made his leadership bid he knew this, back in 2007 when he gave his cast-iron guarantee on a referendum he knew this, back in early 2010 when he he begged voters to elect a eurosceptic Conservative Party he knew this - and this year when he obviously agreed to Useless Eustice forming his pressure group urging repatriation, he knew that this is unachievable too and he is not the only one either. It stands to reason so do the likes of Cash, Redwood, Carswell, Heaton-Harris and the remainder of the supposed eurosceptic Conservatives, including Useless Eustice, Raab, and Patel.

Hopefully the EU will implode through some external factor such as the failure (at long last) of the euro but failing that withdrawal could, I still believe, be accomplished although the after effects might be painful for a time.

Politicians have known for some time now that they are not respected and are held in derision by the public. Should it cross their minds to wonder why, might I suggest they just ask David Cameron. He has not been honest with us, he has lied for personal, political gain and in so doing he has been another to have sullied his Office, his reputation and what was once a revered profession. It reflects badly on those who profess to be honourable, principled men and women that they continue to allow themselves to be led by one of questionable standards. But then, maybe, the fact that any protest is most noticeable by its absence, the fact they seem content to continue to allow themselves to be led..................

Readers may have noticed one omission above when listing prominent eurosceptics and in this regard I would recall an event during the last general election when a microphone worn by Gordon Brown was famously left 'live'. Well, it would seem a similar occurrence happened and Cameron and Hannan were overheard. Enjoy...........!

Oh, So we're Eurorealists now?

Bill Cash, Conservative MP - Stone, has released a 'pamphlet' "It's the EU, Stupid" and posts on Conservative Home, the latter in which he writes:

"The question to be asked of the voters, which must be embedded in the Referendum Bill itself, should be on a simple majority whether they wish a) to leave the European Union or b) to renegotiate our relationship with the European Union into a trading association of nation states with political cooperation. This would present the voters with a clear choice and the outcome would depend on which of the two questions achieved more than 50% of those who voted."

It is in Cash's pamphlet that the term 'Eurorealist' appears, where Cash writes:

"There are those who would wish, as ever, to divide the Eurorealist movement – but the questions that need to be answered by them is who has been proved right over the years and in what respects have they been wrong? It would be helpful to say the least that if those who wish to divide the Eurorealists would come out with transparent and candid arguments and to say what they really want and to what extent they support Government policy and if so, why?"

There is no doubting Cash's detailed knowledge of matters EU, but it is intriguing that for one so anti-EU, or so he would have us believe, his name does not appear on the Better Off Out website, a fact I mentioned in this post.All of which leads me to believe that our William is about to 'Cash' in..........

Another politician who would have us believe he is anti-EU is Daniel Hannan, yet when provided with an opportunity to state that,  it would appear he refuses so to do. I refer to this report in EurActiv in which he is quoted on Andrew Duff's call for the creation a bigger European budget, an EU treasury, a European Monetary Fund and sanctions for countries lacking budget discipline. Hannan is quoted thus:

"..that's their call. The only thing that is my immediate concern as a British representative – and this ought to apply to Andrew Duff, too, come to that – is to ensure that, if Britain is being asked to give its approval to fiscal union within EU legal structures, we get something in return."

Some may say I am being unfair to Hannan, who is a signatory to Better Off Out, but I would counter that the phrase "we get something in return" is hardly that of someone who professes to be anti-EU - more like someone who is prepared to accept this 'repatriation-thingy' which I have stated previously just ain't going to happen.

All this talk of repatriation of powers is, to a certain extent, empty rhetoric for two reasons; namely the EU would never agree and secondly, neither will Nick Clegg who is adamant there will be no such repatriation - which makes rather a mess of Cameron's Conservative motto of "In Europe, but not run by Europe", one which converts that to "In Europe, and kept there by the Liberal Democrats". So David Cameron is in power but not in power, in that he no longer governs this nation due to his acceptance of EU membership; and also what little he can do, he can't because of Nick Clegg.

It would seem that had we a Prime Minister who had a backbone; believed in his own nation and listened to it's people and adhered to his Privy Councillor Oath; an opportunity to walk away from the EU has been presented by Gerhard Schroeder who believes that "Great Britain causes the greatest problems..". Had we such a Prime Minister, instead of the present lily-livered, treasonous and therefore dictatorial office holder that we presently have, he would counter that by informing the EU that as we are not wanted, we're off!

It is regrettable that unfortunately we don't - and he won't!