Rescuing
Democracy in the United Kingdom from our current Elected
Dictatorship
|
Spin, not
face-to-face confrontations with the voters, is the Government's
chosen method of communication. Ordinary
people are dangerous. Ordinary people might ask a question
which throws a politician 'off message'; the Cabinet member
might reveal himself or herself to be a human being like
us, and not a programmed android. Worse still, he or she
might tell the truth.
Ann Leslie - Daily Mail, September
16, 2004
|
How
Tony Blair signed away our right to limit migrants
By
David Hughes - Political Editor, Daily Mail, January 26, 2005
Tony
Blair was on the defensive over asylum yesterday after Downing
St. admitted Britain has signed away to Europe its rights to curb
immigration. No. 10 conceded the Prime Minister's hands were tied
on what is proving to be the hottest issue in the run-up to the
General Election.
His
spokesman confirmed the Government has signed up to a series of
Brussels protocols which make it near impossible for tougher immigration
controls to be imposed unilaterally. Michael Howard seized on
Downing Street's admission last night to accuse Mr Blair of 'pulling
the wool' over voters' eyes by giving away powers over asylum
'by stealth'. And he vowed to 'bring back control over asylum
from Brussels to Britain - where it belongs'.
Police
Chief blames gang-crime explosion on our porous borders
By David Hughes - Political Editor of
the Daily Mail - Jan 26, 2005
A
police chief blames the Government's weak immigration
laws for allowing violent foreign criminals to flood Britain's
streets.
Steven
Pilkington, 56, says gangsters are being repeatedly let
back into the country.
Mr
Pilkington, who retires today as chief constable of the
Avon and Somerset force, said: "What really concerns
me is the way we allow violent, dangerous criminals to
just walk though our borders.
"It
has damaged communities, damaged the prospects of our
young people and it has destroyed lives, particularly
through crack and cocaine. I am simply fed up with having
to catch and convict the same people over and over again
for similar offences. Once they have entered our country,
abused our laws and abused out hospitality and they are
convicted and deported, that should be it. They should
not be able to get back into the country."
Crime-hit
Bristol is at the centre of Mr Pilkington's Avon and Somerset
area. The Home Office refused to comment on the Chief
Constable's remarks, but it insisted that the UK's borders
had been made more secure in recent months.
A
spokesman said there had been a range of initiatives including
moving controls overseas, new detection technology, new
visa regimes and liaison officers helping airlines to
check travel documents.
He
added: "In the medium term, biometric identy cards
will provide everyone legally resident in the UK with
a single, highly reliable means of proving their own identity
and will help in tackling illegal working and illegal
immigration.
|
Over
the past five years Britain has signed up to three EU directives
designed to create a common European asylum system. They effectively
cede control to Brussels over where asylum seekers should make
their claims, how they should be treated, and how they qualify
as refugees.
And
last October, former Home Secretary David Blunkett signed away
Britain's veto over asylum, immigration and border control policies.
In
another setback, Mr Blair's repeated promises to reform the 1951
UN Convention on Refugees - which forms the basis of the EU asylum
policy - also rang hollow. His spokesman said Mr Blair was powerless
to make changes because the 1951 Convention is enshrined in the
European Convention on Human Rights which the Labour Government
has incorporated into UK law.
The
Tories said earlier this week they would withdraw completely from
the 1951 Convention and 'go it alone', setting annual quotas for
immigrants. Rattled by the boldness of the Tory plan, and worried
about its impact on the polls, the government is now expected
to come up with a new five-year immigration and asylum strategy
next week.
It
emerged yesterday that Mr Blair has even been considering a points
system for economic migrants - one of the main planks of the new
Tory policy. But the Prime Minister's credibility is also being
questioned over his past pledge's to reform the 1951 Convention.
On
the eve of the 2001 election Mr Blair said this was a 'priority'.
'It was drawn up for a vastly different world in which people
did not routinely travel huge distances across multiple borders,'
he wrote in an article in The Times. He repeated the pledge two
years ago in an interview with the BBC's Sir David Frost when
he said that if existing measures did not work 'we will have to
consider further measures, including fundamentally looking at
the obligations we have under the Convention on Human Rights'.
But
his spokesman made clear yesterday the promises would not be delivered
as 'you cannot unilaterally change the European Convention on
Human Rights'. The new EU Constitution will make it even harder
to change asylum laws because its Charter of Fundamental Rights
guarantees the right of asylum, as set out in the 1951 UN Convention,
as a basic human right in the EU.
Mr
Howard said last night: "The British Government should control
Britain's borders - and with the Conservatives it will. People
will face a clear choice at the next election - unlimited immigration
with Mr Blair or limited, controlled immigration with the Conservatives."
But
the Tories came under fire from the UN High Commission for Refugees.
The organisation said it was 'nonsense' to say the 1951 Convention
was out-dated. "We find it a rather alarming plan,"
said a spokesman. "We would be very worried if a country
like Britain did withdraw."
Shadow
home Secretary David Davis said: "We want to work with the
UNHCR to make sure Britain takes her fair share of refugees. But
the system needs to be firm and fair enough to ensure that it
cannot be abused as easily as under Labour's asylum chaos."
For
the health of our democracy, we, the people of the United Kingdom,
must find a way to force Mr Blair to resign
Such
defiance of the democratic process and the will of the majority
of we people of the UK, must be exposed by voters as a matter
or urgency, and not just in the two by-elections we have had this
July and the European elections in June 2004. But how can this
be done?
The
most effective way of getting our deceitful PM to resign would
be to mobilise the army of Labour MPs currently in the House of
Commons and get them to demand it, the loss of their seat to be
a penalty if they did not. All voters in Labour-held constituencies
need to write a letter along these lines to their local Labour
MPs:
|
Dear
Despite
his absolute and unequivocal assurances over the past year
of the serious risk to our security of Saddam Hussein's
'weapons of mass destruction', Prime Minister Blair
has admitted, that the threat was non-existent. For that
critical error of judgement and for his gross incompetence
in handling this very important issue, I ask you to take
immediate steps to ensure that Tony Blair does the honourable
thing and resign without delay..
I
would therefore be much obliged if you would propose and
help mobilise a Parliamentary vote of 'No Confidence' in
Mr Blair which, despite Labour's huge majority, would leave
the PM with no option but to resign.
If
I get no reply to this letter, I shall assume you will continue
to support Mr Blair as our Prime Minister. In such circumstances
I shall not vote for you in the forthcoming General Election.
Signed:
|
Simple,
non-violent, protest letters along these lines on a variety of
issues could be the basis for re-vitalising our democracy and
increasing voters' interest and participation in politics. Download
a printable copy of the above letter here.
There
is another way for the voice of the silent majority to be heard,
a voice that made sure broken promises would not only be revealed,
but punished in subsequent elections.
In
the year available before the General Election expected in 2005,
many topics are available as ammunition, each one asking questions.
A weapon for our purpose will be the results of Opinion Polls
in individual constituencies using ICM, NOP, Gallop, Mori
or YouGov.
Questions
suggested for this purpose are listed here.
CAST
YOUR VOTE ON A VARIETY OF OTHER IMPORTANT ISSUES HERE.
Current
and prospective Parliamentary candidates of all Parties running
for election could share a platform at public forums in every
constituency. They would be presented with the results of
polls on this issue expressed by the majority of voters in that
constituency.
The candidates could be asked if their own views and that of their
Party manifesto corresponded with the polls, and if not, how they
intended to represent the will of the majority of local voters.
Local and National Press, Radio and TV coverage would be arranged
and the results published on this web site.
Here
is another powerful strategy for using your vote effectively in
the forthcoming General Election. Send your sitting and prospective
MPs a letter defining your requirements if they want your vote.
This example deals with the proposed
EU Constitutional Treaty.
Your
letters would end: "If you do not answer
this letter, I shall take it that you intend to follow the Government
line. I shall act accordingly in the forthcoming General Election.
Or
why not create a questionnaire that you send to all the candidates
in your constituency, getting them to give yes/no answers to questions
of your choice, and ending it with the same paragraph(above).
Download
a printable example of the questionnaire.
It
is high time for the people of this United Kingdom to stop allowing
themselves to be manipulated by politicians. We need our representatives
in Parliament to genuinely reflect the view of the majority in
their own constituency, even if this means going against their
personal and/or their party's policy. While they may argue their
case, hoping to change the minds of the majority in their constituency,
they should ultimately be obliged to reflect the majority view
of those who elect them.
It
will be argued by politicians of all parties that most voters
don't have the knowledge necessary to express an opinion on important
subjects at issue, and that our vote is a form of delegated democracy.
We should argue that it is their duty to ensure that we voters
do have ready access to such information as is necessary to form
an intelligent opinion. That, after all, is one main purpose of
Opposition Parties in our Parliamentary Democracy.
Most
important of all, such proceedings would rekindle in voters their
latent interest and obligation to cast their vote, knowing that
the candidate of their choice would be more likely to act in accordance
with their wishes. A much higher turnout in elections would be
the result.
Contact
your local Party Chairman. Gain his support for setting up public
forums in your constituency on these, as well as any other relevant
topics, well before the next General Election expected in 2005.
You should then, depending on the integrity of the candidate of
your choice, feel fairly certain that your view on any subject
being debated in Parliament will more accurately be reflected
by your representative in that assembly.
