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
|
|
After
a clear vote against them, we still got eight non-elected
Regional Assemblies. When we vote against the EU Constitution,
we'll get them anyway. Letter from P.Cove, Aylesbury,
BUCKS.- Daily Mail, January 31, 2005
THE
TIMES slavish support for the Government worries some
members of the paper's staff, not to mention any perspicacious
readers who are left. Political editor Philip Webster
was questioned about this when he addressed colleagues
as part of an in-house 'masterclass' exercise. Small wonder.
One of his Blair-worshipping subordinates wrote a news
story yesterday poo-pooing the row over Labours anti-semitic
poster mocking Michael Howard, saying it was merely £5million
worth of 'free publicity' for the party. Ephraim Hardcastle
- Daily Mail, Febrauary 2, 2005
|
The
great deception
Our
Foreign Secretary and seven outrageous Euro whoppers
By
Edward Heathcote Amory - Daily Mail, February 10, 2005
In
Mein Kampf, Hitler outlines his approach to propaganda: "(People)
more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since
it would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths,
and they would not believe that others could have the impudence
to distort the truth so infamously".
On
the BBC Radio 4 Today programme yesterday, our Foreign Secretary
Jack straw used a version of this same technique in a bid to persuade
us to support the European Constitution. He made a series of assertions
about that document which were not simply untrue, but the exact
opposite of the reality.
As
the referendum on the (European) constitution inches closer, the
Government - and the expensive PR agency Geronimo that it has
hired with our money - will be pumping out more of this rubbish.
So here, in the interests of fairness, the Mail provides a guide
to the facts behind Mr Straw's propaganda.
(1)
Straw: For all of those who say, "If you look at the last
30 years we have lost power to Brussels", it actually isn't
true
TRUTH:
On June 6, 1975, Britain voted to become part of the EEC. The
officially neutral guide to that referendum assured us that 'no
important new policy can be decided in Brussels or anywhere else
without the consent of a British minister."
Today,
half the legislation going on to the British statute book originates
in Brussels and passes into our law with nothing more than a nod
and wink from Parliament. Nearly all of this legislation
has been agreed to by Qualified Majority Voting under which Britain
cannot say NO.
(2)Straw:
(The constitution) provides for a far greater level of accountability
of what happens in Brussels ... to national parliaments.
TRUTH:
Our Government attempted to introduce a system
under which European legislation could not go through if one third
of all national parliaments objected. They failed. Instead the
constitution provides a system by which our Parliament can object
to an EU law and the European commission can completely ignore
that objection.
(3)Straw:
What (the constitution) does is say thus far and no further ....
(it) literally limits the powers of the European Union.
TRUTH:
The constitution is littered with provisions
for going further. There is a general Flexibility Clause that
allows the EU to adopt new powers, no set out in the constitution
at any time. There
are assumptions of further convergence, such as the assertion
that the common foreign and security policy 'will lead to a common
defence'.
And
finally, there are specific potential powers built in, such as
the ability to set up a European Public Prosecutor, a measure
which our Government bitterly opposed.
(4)Straw:
This Constitutional Treaty was a victory for Britain ... I set
out a series of red lines for the United Kingdom ... in the negotiations
we delivered on each and every one of them.
TRUTH:
Our ministerial negotiators tabled 275 amendments
to the constitution. They achieved 27 of them, only one in ten.
Among the 'red lines' we lost out on were the creation of a European
Foreign Minister, the creation of a European mutual defence pact
to rival Nato, the common asylum and immigration systems which
together undermine Britain's control over its borders, the insertion
of the Charter of Fundamental Rights as an integral part of the
constitution with full force of law, and the provision that we
must give up our seat on the UN Security Council to the EU Foreign
Minister if he wants it.
(5)Straw:
If you want to make changes (to) the Common Agricultural Policy
(and) the single market ... you have to get rid of the veto.
TRUTH:
We
gave up the veto in these areas many years ago, under the Tories.
The constitution surrenders the veto in an additional 61 areas
that have nothing at all to do with the CAP or the single market.
This is in addition to the 66 areas, including transport, equal
opportunities, social policy, and asylum and immigration policy,
where Tony Blair already surrendered our veto in two previous
EU treaties which he signed without a referendum.
The
constitution also introduces a new voting system that makes it
more difficult for Britain and its allies to block legislation
where we no longer have a veto.
(6)Straw:
There is provision by which some of the powers ... can be handed
back to the national governments themselves.
TRUTH:
It's true that the constitution states that
'the institutions of the Union shall apply the principle of subsidiarity',
under which nothing is done centrally that can better be done
nationally. But it is also the case that since John Major hailed
subsidiarity at the time of the Maastricht Treat in 1992, no powers
at all have been returned to national governments. Instead the
Union has steadily expanded its power and influence. There are
no examples of any kind in the constitution of the EU surrendering
powers to nation states.
(7)Straw:
Over the last eight years, as the Labour Government have been
more involved in Europe, so we have become ... more prosperous.
TRUTH:
Britain's prosperity has been rising in spite
of, not because of, the EU. As John Sunderland, president of the
Confederation of British Industry, said recently: "The outgoing
European Commission - which should have championed free market
reform - appeared obsessed with increasing employment legislation
and environmental legislation."
The
British Chambers of Commerce estimates the cost to British industry
of just one piece of EU legislation - the working times rules
introduced by Labour - at £11billion and rising.
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.
