Making Perry?

Autonomous Mind posts on the alleged spat twixt Claire Perry and Douglas Carswell, as reported in the Mail on Sunday. For the record, the question Carswell asked was during Prime Ministers Questions, when Nick Clegg deputised for David Cameron who was otherwise engaged on a jaunt to visit Obama. Having viewed this exchange on Parliament TV (starts 12:28:55) unfortunately some numpty stands up in front of Perry so it is not possible to see what happened.


Even allowing for the fact that some would say that the present Conservative Party is far from what is traditionally held to be a Conservative Party, Carswell is still taking the party whip and presenting himself to the public and his electorate as a Conservative MP. I find it strange that an MP who is so 'distant' in his beliefs when comparing those beliefs with that of his party still remains within that party; which leads to the belief that his political principles and beliefs are not as strong as his desire to continue his career - and so on balance I am the same opinion as Autonomous Mind.


Whilst I, too, have been critical of Carswell on my blog, if one is to criticise him of faux euroscepticism, then the same accusation must be made to Bill Cash, Bernard Jenkin, Peter Bone, Philip Hollobone, Christopher Heaton-Harris and others, in which of the latter I of course include Daniel Hannan. Where I believe Carswell lays himself open to criticism is that bearing in mind his authorship, with Daniel Hannan, of "The Plan", those aspects of their tome that Cameron has embraced has been done with what one might call 'lip-service' in that that which Carswell and Hannan believe is far distant to that which Cameron will be implementing.


What is at the heart of this matter is principle and honour, not just in their support of the party under whose name they sail, but also when considering how they campaigned during a general election. From the moment David Cameron was elected Leader it was obvious that he was not the eurosceptic that he presented himself as, a position that has hardened as time has gone by. I have to admit that I do not know how they conducted their election campaigns, but pound to a penny those campaigns were run according to the Conservative Party manifesto with a wish on their part not to 'rock the boat' in the hope that a Conservative majority would be achieved. In that regard, one wonders how often during campaign speeches and canvassing they broached the subject of this country's EU membership without it being raised by those to whom they were addressing. If I am incorrect on that suggestion then obviously I offer an unreserved apology. In fairness, it may well be that they too were misled by a manifesto which promised re-call of MPs, local referenda, etc, etc.


What the subject of Carswell's, and others, position raises is doubt about their political principles and honour and reinforces the belief held by many that MPs - of all parties it must be said - are more concerned about their careers, even if they do not wish for ministerial promotion. If one holds firm political principles then where is the personal honour in remaining a member of a party who plainly does not espouse those same principles? It is accepted that membership of a party cannot mean that one agrees with every policy that that party promotes, but in the case of Carswell and Hannan they are both so diametrically opposed the question of why they remain in the Conservative Party has to be repeated.


Claire Perry's alleged suggestion may well be supported by some, both in Parliament and amongst the public and they may well point to the case of Roger Helmer who did indeed 'jump ship', although in the case of the latter I believe there were other reasons - for example, with his stated intention not to stand again coupled with his inability to have his favoured candidate take his place, was he motivated to proverbially stick two fingers up to Cameron and Warsi?


Knowing my preference for Direct Democracy, there may be critics who will argue that the same shenanigans would occur, which they may well do; however because those matters for which national politicians would be responsible for would be greatly reduced, so would the possibility for differences of opinion on policy.


Just a few thoughts on the Perry/Caswell matter offered for further discussion.........

When will our politicians 'grow a pair'?

Today in the House of Commons an emergency debate was held, at the request of the well-known 'eurosceptic' Bill Cash, on the Treaty on Stability, Co-ordination and Governance - on which the Hansard report can be read here. 


In his opening remarks, Bill Cash:

"The debate is about the rule of law: not only the rule of law as it affects the United Kingdom but, inevitably, the rule of law in Europe as a whole. The Prime Minister, to his great credit, rightly exercised the veto to protect UK interests....."

For the last time, there was not a 'Treaty' on the table so how could Cameron have exercised a veto? Sheesh!


John Baron (Con - Basildon & Billericay) asks:

"Does he share my concern that with democracy having been suspended, in effect, in two countries, with a deepening democratic deficit........"

Has not democracy been suspended in 27 nations, not just two? Has not democracy been suspended in the UK - with the compliance of our 'representatives'? Sheesh!


"Give a dog a bone" - we then find that Peter of that ilk repeats the fallacy that the Prime Minister vetoed a treaty. Perhaps Mrs. Bone might have a word with her spokesman?


We are continually informed that the UK should 'protect its interests' in its membership of the European Union, yet if as Mark Reckless informs us our influence is limited, one has to ask what is the point of our membership?


Robert Buckland is of the opinion that where debates on matters EU are concerned both the HoC and the HoL need to 'raise their game' in both debates and scrutiny. He appears not to recognise that until MPs raise their game to the point of saying 'Out', they can debate and scrutinise all they like - it will change nothing.


With Richard Drax, another Conservative who is unable to make up his mind about EU integration, admitting that we do not want out, we obviously have another Cameroon puppet and Buckland agreeing makes two!


That Robert Buckland, in an intervention to Anne Main, states that all MPs are patriots - or should be - hits a nail squarely on the head where matters EU are concerned!


In his summation David Lidington states that scrutiny and criticism is important but one has to ask: what is the point of scrutiny and criticism of something which you cannot change; which begs the question is not the existence of the European Scrutiny Committee and that the House of Commons thus unnecessary and a waste of taxpayer's money? Lidington continues to maintain that decisions taken by governments, in particular Greece, have to be enacted by democratically elected parliaments, but are not decisions taken by democratically elected parliaments, against the wishes of the people, no more than those of democratised dictators - in which case where is 'democracy'?


If anything demonstrates the ineffectiveness of our Parliament and the MPs therein, it is that three hours were spent discussing an EU matter on which we have no influence and can effect no change. And Parliament is sovereign? And we are, as political leaders maintain, a self-governing country? Sheesh!

Why a clean slate is needed

In my preceding post I posed the question whether the Coalition will last because of the wish of two disparate political parties to rescue the economy of our country, or whether it will last because the top echelon of those two disparate parties wish to retain their individual positions of privilege and power. 


Where people wish to retain positions of privilege and power, be that the public or private sector, if pushed into the proverbial corner they will lie to save their careers. An example of this fact has been illustrated by Richard North, EU Referendum, (do follow the links) in which he shows that Cameron has in effect misled the House of Commons.


That the questioner, nor any other MP (God forbid MilibandE, who doesn't appear to know what day of the week it is) was not immediately hitting the 'airways' asking the question posed in Richard North's headline to his post, namely "Whose this "We", Cameron", leads one to finally believe that they are indeed "all in it together" - to coin a phrase. The marked lack of so-called 'Eurosceptics' so doing, was telling - what? Where was Cash, Carswell, Heaton-Harris, Bone, Jenkin (to name but a few) - and more importantly, although not an MP, where was that 'arch-antiEUer' Daniel Hannan, from whom so far we have not heard one peep?


The lack of rebuttal by MPs (and MEPs) can only be due to:


(a) they have no idea of what membership of the EU entails;


(b) they have no wish to 'rock the boat' as they are hoping for advancement in their careers', or:


(c) they are 'brain-dead' idiots.


Personally, I suspect the latter as that seems to be the prime qualification for entry into our political system.


Apologies for 'banging-on' about it, but does this not illustrate why our present system of democracy must, repeat must, be changed/


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

It must be in the genes,

the ability to write with witticism and just the right hint of sarcasm.

According to North Jnr, EU Referendum, on Richard North's progress following his operation:

"He should be out of hospital by Sunday. He will not be returning to the blog just yet. He is still under the influence of brain numbing medication and thus is only qualified to write editorials for the Daily Telegraph."

Priceless!

More on that 'democratised dictatorship' thingy (3)

"Let us never forget that government is ourselves and not an elected power over us. The ultimate rulers of our democracy are ourselves and not a Prime Minister, MPs, Peers and government officials, but the voters of this country."
(Paraphrasing Franklin D. Roosevelt)

Yet more examples of our system of 'democratised dictatorship' under which we are presently forced to live.

From last Friday's Order of Business in the House of Commons

"5. COMMON FISHERIES POLICY (WITHDRAWAL) BILL: Second Reading.
Member in charge: Mr Peter Bone."

Which says: "(1) The Secretary of State must establish a Commission to report to Parliament
within six months of this bill coming into force the steps necessary to effect the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the Common Fisheries Policy. (2) The Commission will also establish and report to Parliament the steps necessary to restore the United Kingdom’s territorial fishing waters."

 "15. EUROPEAN UNION ACT 2011 (AMENDMENT) BILL: Second Reading.
Member in charge: Mr William Cash.

Which says: "1) A treaty, European Council decision or other legal instrument of the European
Union which provides for the creation of a fiscal union or economic governance within the Eurozone shall require approval by Act of Parliament and fulfilment of the referendum condition as set out in section 2(2) or 3(2) or 6(4), as the case may be, of the European Union Act 2011.

(2) Sections 11 to 13 of the European Union Act 2011 shall apply to a referendum held in pursuance of subsection (1) above."

Meaning that any such "treaty, European Council decision or legal instrument of the European
Union" would have to be put to a referendum.

Bearing in mind the order of those two Bills on the order paper, it is questionable whether there would ever be time for either of them to be debated before 2.30 pm, after which "only those Bills which are unopposed may make further progress".

Sure enough, we find that the first raises an objection and is now scheduled for debate on 25th November;  the second doesn't even get mentioned as Hansard shows that a jump occured from item 13, Kinship Carers to item 16, House of Commons Disqualification.

Ain't democracy wonderful when it can be controlled by those practising it?

As I began with a paraphrase of a quote, so shall I end it:

"Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people, by the political Executive, for the people."

(Paraphrasing Oscar Wilde)