The case for direct democracy

Regular readers will know that I have, of late, become an advocate for direct democracy, encapsulating 'referism', to be introduced in our nation; a system to replace the present 'representative democracy' which I maintain is no more than 'democratised dictatorship'.

Politicians present themselves as the only means wherein their forming a government is the only vehicle by which a nation can deal with the outside world through international relations and in so doing decide, facilitate and guide what are a nation's interests; as it is maintained by politicians that only they can protect and safeguard all that lies within its borders. In which case a democracy would only permit a government to be responsible for its military, defence, security and economic policy. Contrary to current political belief it is not the role of government to create wealth and prosperity - although they have this idea that that is something they can do.

The 'primary' responsibilities of a government are those set out above, which means that any others are 'secondary' and are, therefore, not concerned with the survival of a nation but more of development of a nation and its society. Bearing in mind human nature, whereby once an individual gains a power it attempts to acquire yet more power, politicians have a tendency to confuse and conflate secondary responsibilities, thereby creating a suggestion that those secondary responsibilities are in fact of vital national interest - and must be 'regulated' by them - and thus increasing their power.

In a true democracy national interests cannot be removed from an electorate's interests otherwise what has been created is government by fiat. If democracy is to be the system by which a nation is to exist, then the benefits that the people enjoy and the rules of the society in which they live must mean that the people have a fundamental role to play in the guidance of a nation's future and must be able to act as the "port of last resort" where decisions affecting that nation are concerned. It is for that reason - and that reason alone - why the active and participative involvement of the people is not just desirable but is, one could suggest, mandatory. It therefore follows that the more distant from the people that decisions are taken, the closer democratised dictatorship becomes.

Where 'government', as presently practiced, is concerned it will always be rooted in a possession of power and expansion of that power, or a preservation of the status quo with a view to expansion of that power - and therein lies the danger of the people's individual freedoms being eroded - which in turn means that there can be no 'demos'. Clausewitz famously declared that a nation's behaviour  is motivated by its need to survive and prosper - and who better to make that decision than the people of a nation? The fact that the European Union is desperately seeking "a soul" - a "crie de ceour" of Jacques Delors - a characteristic that it surely lacks, shows that because each individual nation wishes to be itself, the European Union cannot, logically, succeed in its aims.

That the foregoing shows the present system of democracy cannot be allowed to continue, is undeniable. That the people who fund democracy must be allowed to dictate the system of democracy under which they live, is undeniable.

In ceding the power to dictate, guide and decide our nation's future - have not our politicians abrogated their right to 'power'? Is it not time that the people reclaimed their right to decide their nation's future? Is it not time that the people re-assumed their inalienable right to decide their own future?

Does not the piper call the tune?

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

No, Mr. Farage, No!

Ukip has made a submission to the Commission on a Bill of Rights, one that leaves me incredulous as to his and his party's motives. Surely Ukip and Farage have not succumbed to the politician's belief that only the state knows best, that the people must accept what the state decides?

It may have escaped the attention of Nigel Farage that a Bill of Rights already exists on the Statute Book and all that is needed to cement that within our society is a return to the practise of Common Law. In that respect I would suggest Nigel Farage reads this post from Ian Parker-Joseph.

As with the party's - and Farage's - belief that taking the 'EU Shilling Euro' was a resigning matter for me, so is this latest 'idea'.

The 'write' of commenters

Once previously, to the best of my knowledge - and allowing for the lapses in the memory of a Senior Citizen - I posted a comment to one of my items as I felt it worthy in that the content of that comment was extremely erudite and posed further searching questions. I am repeating that exercise in relation to my previous post: "Err, bit puzzled here". From, first Edward Spalton and, second, Peter Charles:

"Headroom"?, "Haircut"? ,"Kicking the can down the road"?
These are all nice homely words used to cover extremely sharp practices. They conceal rather than convey meaning.

Does anybody remember "The Snake" and "The Corset" applied to monetary matters?

I suppose they are better than the more pompous "Quantitative Easing" which actually means "Debasing the currency".

Then there are all the initials and acronyms of which most people have a less than clear idea - ranging from our old friend EMU (Economic and Monetary Union) through EMS, ERM and so on ad infinitem which recently got as far as EFSF.

The people who give the Plain Language Awards should start to persecute and shame all official financial SPIVs into clarity of language which might lead to clarity of thought.

A SPIV, by the way, is a Special Investment Vehicle by which, it is hoped ,that those nice Chinese will be persuaded to prop up the Euro, thus
"leveraging" and multiplying the effect of the funds actually guaranteed by the EFSF.

Ain't that dandy? Now you know. 


A second though has occurred to me.

I heard Cameron say that he would be advancing money to the IMF which might support the eurozone along with other economies and here are his words
"BECAUSE NOBODY EVER LOST MONEY, LENDING TO THE IMF"

Does that mean that he thinks direct loans to eurozone are too risky and are likely to become gifts?

As Cameron will have to borrow the money before he can lend it because the government is till running a thumping deficit, will he be able to charge the IMF more interest than the treasury has to pay?

If so, why would the IMF come to him for a loan and not borrow from the same source as the British treasury? They could cut out the middle man - that's us and hoo blooming ray, if they did!

I only want to know."

"I assume Cameron means that the amount currently pledged is well short of the £20 billion cap they last voted to approve, doubling our commitment from £10 to £20 billion. Thus any further pledges will not require parliamentary approval until that £20 billion cap is breached in actual cash terms. Another interesting question is which currency are they going to lend out, $US or €? If you are interested, current currency reserves are in the order of £30 billion and the government has budgeted to raise this by £6 billion a year through the life of this parliament, probably so they can meet their IMF pledge while maintaining a prudent reserve.

ES asks a very valid question, just how much is the interest we get and over what time frame? The actual cash is taken from the currency reserve so in central bank terms it is not newly borrowed and when it is lent it is still counted as cash in the reserve so it has no impact on the 'books' as it were, did you ever notice how it is that governments can get away with mafia accounting that would see a private individual or business man getting a gaol sentence while they don't even have the decency to blush? Nor do they mention those planned increases in foreign currency reserves are to be largely raised from bond sales although this will be done using swaps which presumably means that once a bond has reached maturity and they have issued a new bond to pay the original off they will issue yet another bond to boost the reserve.

The pretend excuse/intention is, of course, that the maturing bond will not need to be replaced because the deficit will be reducing so the new bond for the reserves is not 'extra' borrowing. Talk about cloud cuckoo land economics."

Coincidentally, this links in rather neatly with the preceding post...........

So we are going to have a 'British' Bill of Rights?

"It might be more worthwhile if we stopped wringing our hands and started ringing the necks of our politicians."

From the Coalition's 'programme for government' (page 11):

"We will establish a Commission to investigate the creation of a British Bill of Rights that incorporates and builds on all our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, ensures that these rights continue to be enshrined in British law, and protects and extends British liberties. We will seek to promote a better understanding of  the true scope of these obligations and liberties."

On 8th February 2010 the European Union produced document 6180/10: which, from the introduction, stated "the question of the accession of the EU to the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights, hereinafter referred to as "ECHR", ranks among the highest priorities". 

The House of Commons Library produced on 22nd March 2011 Standard Note SN/IS/5914, which stated:

"3 The draft Council Decision
The negotiating mandate, the Draft Council Decision authorising the Commission to negotiate the Accession Agreement of the European Union to the European Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), has been confidential and therefore was not made available for parliamentary scrutiny. However, the Government deposited a partially declassified version of the Council Decision authorising the negotiation of the accession agreement. On 8 February 2010 the Commission published document 6180/10 on EU accession which outlined the informal discussions and issues being addressed at meetings of Justice and Home Affairs Counsellors, national experts, the Commission and a representative of the Court of Justice."

One does wonder why the negiotiating mandate has been classified 'confidential' and was not available for parliamentary scrutiny, but I digress........

It is now discovered that, in the meantime, the Coalition Government has been working behind the scenes, so to speak, proposing text amendments to the "Draft Agreement on the Accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights" - those amendments can be read here.

We, in the United Kingdom, already have a Bill of Rights, one that is steadily being eroded by directives and regulations from the European Union; by adherence to the European Court of Human Rights; and by the nudges from unelected 'politically correct' fake charities.

It is becoming obvious that the Coalition's proposed British Bill of Rights has already been written!

How it should be!

EurActiv reports that the canton of Vaud has rejected an initiative to grant the right to vote to non-Swiss residents, even though they may have been resident for ten years. Raphaël Mahaim, a Green Party politician and co-president of the initiative, told the Swiss press:

"For the majority of Vaud residents there is still an important link between nationality and local political rights."

Now there's the basis for a good immigration policy! Yup, you can come to our country to visit, you can  come to our country to live - just don't expect to have a voice in deciding how we live!

Now, what's not to like about that idea.........?

Revolution should be compulsory (perhaps)

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better......"
Abraham Lincoln 12th January 1848

"Democracy has proved only that the best way to gain power over people is to assure the people that they are ruling themselves. Once they believe that, they make wonderfully submissive slaves."
Joseph Sobran - The Myth of 'Limited Government'

Richard North, EU Referendum, writes that politics no longer matters when it has no relevance and bears no further analysis; that the politicians of today are no longer 'of us' and that as a consequence they have nothing in common with us nor we with them.

That is so very, very true, borne out by the fact that Cameron has stated only today lunchtime that he listened to the public about the sale of forests and reversed the policy. It makes a good headline for him, yet masks the dictatorial attitude he has in respect of so much of his politics. It is a great pity that he does not listen to the British public when they complain about foreign aid and this country's membership of the EU. That money alone would go a long way to ensuring that our elderly and vulnerable received the level of care to which they are entitled.

We are assured by Cameron that he intends creating a smaller state by devolving power to the people, yet as the Localism Bill and Freedom Bill demonstrates, the devolution of power - and freedoms being returned - to the people is no more than a sham exercise in public relations. As Ian Parker-Joseph demonstrated yesterday, here, the idea of a new Bill of Rights is but another sham exercise in public relations whereby our system of Common Law can be buried for ever. In fact with Cameron, as with the present politicians of Red or Yellow persuasion, what is offered is the illusion of 'people power' when in actual fact, the result is the exact opposite.

So, paraphrasing P.J. O'Rourke, when considering politics in this country it is obvious that Labour are the party that that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer - and that you don't actually have to work to achieve that. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are both parties that say government doesn't work, get elected and promptly prove it.

I have just read a book, published by Big Brother Watch, "The state of civil liberties in modern Britain" in which various politicians and writers contribute chapters and from that written by David Davis I quote:

"Indeed the British people, as we all know, are terribly casual about liberty. They treat it carelessly, like a very old suit of clothes that they have had for a very long time. Because, that is precisely what it is. Only when under visible threat do they react. Then they come out and are willing to die in their hundreds of thousands to defend it. But to get the British people to react, we have to make the threat obvious and clear."

If our politicians were men and women of principle and honour they would be doing just that - making the threat obvious and clear. They would be doing so in plain English, instead of talking in riddles or what may be termed 'politic-speak'. They won't do that of course as they prefer to keep those they are supposed to represent in perpetual slavery.

It is increasingly clear to me - and it would appear to others in the blogosphere - that the only way the status of our country can be restored to its former glory is by means of a 'people's revolution'. Having removed the detritus that presently inhabits Westminster - and our local authorities etc - is to then instil the ideas of this man into the heads of their replacements. As a foretaste and to ensure you do read the link, allow me to provide two extracts:

"When we started this process with the Department of Transportation, it had 5,600 employees. When we finished, it had 53. When we started with the Forest Service, it had 17,000 employees. When we finished, it had 17. When we applied it to the Ministry of Works, it had 28,000 employees. I used to be Minister of Works, and ended up being the only employee...........We achieved an overall reduction of 66 percent in the size of government, measured by the number of employees. The government’s share of GDP dropped from 44 to 27 percent. We were now running surpluses, and we established a policy never to leave dollars on the table: We knew that if we didn’t get rid of this money, some clown would spend it. So we used most of the surplus to pay off debt, and debt went from 63 percent down to 17 percent of GDP. We used the remainder of the surplus each year for tax relief. We reduced income tax rates by half and eliminated incidental taxes. As a result of these policies, revenue increased by 20 percent. Yes, Ronald Reagan was right: lower tax rates do produce more revenue."

If only we were not shackled to a political ideology that is foreign to our nature; that we were, once again, a self-governing nation; that we had politicians of principle and honour, ones with a basic grasp of economics; that we had a people who were proud of their country; who believed in liberty and freedom..........

Oh well, never mind.