skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Within his Sunday Telegraph regular column, once again Christopher Booker manages to hit three nails on the head. First, he shows how and why the European Union is doomed to fail; second, where he hopes that Edward Heath is indeed in Hell when writing: "If only Edward Heath could look up to see where his hubris has led us to."; and third, where he highlights the draconian attitude of our social workers where the well being of a child is concerned.
Never mind that Christopher Booker should be awarded a Knighthood for his work, one which won't be forthcoming needless to say; he can perhaps console himself that - and long may the day be in coming - when it is his turn to 'look down'.............
Just saying, CB................
Benedict Brogan, Daily Telegraph op-ed piece for tomorrow, writes that Cameron won't save the Union by descending into the gutter - to which one has to respond that Brogan won't save journalism by following the same plan.
What we have here, as in so much that Brogan supposedly composes, is but another "Big-up-Cameron" piece and if this is the best that he can offer one can but suggest that he follows his own advice, namely indulging in lengthy periods of silence.
Does not each of the LibLabCon indulge in 'soft nationalism' - until such time as the choice has to be made twixt EU membership and that of their country? In respect of Scotland, 'soft nationalism' has been on the agenda since 1968 when Edward Heath raised the matter at the Conservative conference. Of course, had our politicians not indulged in what amounts to sectarianism coupled with their pursuit of power; had they adopted the principle of direct democracy, the problems of today, where Scotland is concerned and where Northern Ireland and Wales are also concerned, albeit to a lesser extent at present, none of the present problems regarding nationalism would exist.
On that last point I am reminded of a quotation by Benedict Anderson (this Benedict seemed to know what he wrote about) who said:
"I propose the following definition of the nation: it is an imagined political community-and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign. It is imagined because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion.... Communities are to be distinguished, not by their falsity/genuineness, but by the style in which they are imagined.... Finally, [the nation] is imagined as a community, because, regardless of the actual inequality and exploitation that may prevail in each, the nation is conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship. Ultimately, it is this fraternity that makes it possible, over the past two centuries for so many millions of people, not so much to kill, as willing to die for such limited imaginings."
Did we, as a United Kingdom, not fight wars to preserve that Kingdom, that Nation? Is it not politicians that have, for their own purposes, attempted to create divisions that do not, in reality, exist? On a wider front, is it not politicians who for their own purposes have created the European Union and in so doing created divisions, through their policy of regionalisation, within each Member State?
Yes, we are English, or Scottish, or Welsh, or Northern Irish - we can, understandably, trumpet our individuality - but at the end of the day we are and can be a United Kingdom, one that could exist quite harmoniously under a system of direct democracy - whilst allowing each nation its own 'identity'.
Don't let politicians, for their own nefarious reasons, split our United Kingdom! Please?
Just saying..........
"We are coming, I think, to yet another turning point in our long history. We can go on as we have been going and continue down. Or we can stop and with a decisive act of will we can say “Enough”."
Margaret Thatcher - Tory Party Conference 1975*
Matthew d'Ancona has his usual Sunday op-ed piece in today's Sunday Telegraph, an article which is no more than an attempt to 'big up' Dav il Cam's New Year Message due to be released tomorrow. Being one of the 'Westminster Bubble', a self-serving, self-promoting clique, d'Ancona naturally wishes to continue with a failed model of government, one that serves no purpose other than to continue our system of representative democracy - aka democratised dictatorship.
Let us, briefly, examine the existing model of government. It is a system that provides for the use of patronage in the hands of whoever secures the position of Prime Minister; it is a system that allows the leaders of our political parties to control the selection process of their candidates, who once elected are then subjected to pressure from 'enforcers' (party whips) to toe the party line in any vote that may be required to pass government legislation; it is a system that allows political parties to publish manifestos, come elections, the promises contained within which can be - and often are - reneged upon; it is a system that allows government by 'fiat' through the use of Statutory Instruments; it is a system that, currently, hands unlimited power to a political party for a period of 5 years, during which time they can do just about what they damn well please, without the electorate having any means to 'bring them to heel'; it is a system which allows politicians to control the content of media output; it is a system that allows politicians to cede governance of this country elsewhere, thus making a mockery of 'sovereignty'; it is a system that has allowed the practice of fraud - and continues so to do - by those entitled to the use of the prefix 'Honourable'; it is a system that allows those elected to 'govern' to pass laws to which they themselves are not subject; it is a system that allows political parties, once elected to government, to present a blank cheque to the tax-paying public with the instruction that it has to be paid; it is a system that permits Common Law to be overridden by Statute ('English Legal System'' Elliot and Quinn 11th Ed page 64: 'Presumptions: The courts assume that certain points are implied in all legislation. These presumptions include the following: statutes do not change the common law); it is a system of democracy which, frankly, is well past its sell-by date.
We can, as the Maggietollah said, continue down the path of servitude or we can cry "Enough" - all things considered, did our nation not fight against the practice of slavery? Are we not subjected to slavery under the present system of democratised dictatorship? In the context of that last statement, I can but once again repeat the question posed by Ian Parker-Joseph: Name 6 everyday activities, yes, just six, that you undertake that does not require a. permission, b. licence, c. regulated action, d. regulated packaging, materials, ingredients, tools etc. i.e. 6 activities that never touch the state or a regulator.
There is a better system of democracy available, one that combines 'Referism' and 'Direct Democracy' - and you will have the opportunity shortly, via talkconstitution.net, to discuss the benefits of that system.
* Not that the Maggietollah would wish to be reminded that she also said: "And of Edward Heath who successfully led the Party to victory in 1970 and brilliantly led the nation into Europe in 1973" - but I digress..........
