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
Struggling
Straws line on the new EU Constitution appears completely at odds
with the reality
By
Paul Eastham - Deputy Political Editor, Daily Mail, February 10,
2005
Jack
Straw plunged Labour into a state of bewilderment yesterday when
he claimed the new European Constitution will
halt
the transfer of British sovereignty to Brussels.
In a desperate attempt to sell the treaty to sceptical Labour
MPs, the Foreign Secretary claimed it signalled 'thus far and
no further' on European integration.
Why
can't they try honest debate
- Comment - Daily Mail, Feb 10, 2005
Sounding
increasingly like a used car salesman, Foreign Secretary
Jack Straw trumpets the 'patriotic' case for the EU constitution,
proclaiming it a great victory for Britain and the guarantee
of our liberty, prosperity and sovereignty.
And
so the great debate begins - not in fact or honest analysis,
but in falsehoods and disingenuity Mr Straw claims Britain
has won on 'each and every one' of its negotiation 'red
lines'. False. Ministers
table 275 amendments to this constitution, but won on
only 27.
He
says Parliament will have 'a greater level of accountability'
over matters European. False.
It is full of provisions for closer integration.
Most
grotesquely of all, he seems to think closer European
ties are good for out economy. Really? But the reason
Britain is doing so well is that we have stayed out of
a single currency that is stultifying the economies of
France and Germany.
And
even as Mr Straw was promising no further loss of sovereignty
to the EU, events in Brussels were undermining him. And
even as Mr Straw was promising no further loss of sovereignty
to the EU, events in Brussels were undermining him.
Yesterday
we learned that the Commission plans a vast new 'social
agenda' - yet another naked attempt by Brussels to grab
more power and inflict more job-losing red tape on member
states.
But
not a word about that came from Mr Straw. He will swear
black is white to persuade voters to swallow the constitution.
There could hardly be a more depressing way of preparing
Britain for a decision of awesome significance.
|
His
claim that a line had been drawn in the sand against any future
loss of power from Westminster was greeted with widespread disbelief.
Dissident Labour backbenchers, senior Tories and eurosceptic campaigners
pointed out that Tony Blair had said the exact opposite. At a
speech in November 2002 in Cardiff, the Prime Minister said: "We
must end the nonsense of this far and no further." Ardently
Blairite Europe Minister Denis MacShane had also said just before
Christmas that there will be further treaties: "Europe is
very young - this won't be the last word."
Mr
#straw's highly contentious argument came as he faced the formidable
task of persuading MPs to back a Government Bill paving the way
for a referendum on the Constitution. Yesterday's debate came
as opinion polls continued to show Labour will lose the crucial
vote, potentially putting Mr Blair's premiership in jeopardy.
To the alarm of Ministers a large number of Labour MPs joined
the Tories in arguing the treaty was a step towards creating a
European superstate, increasingly usurping the power of national
governments.
In
an attempt to combat those fears, Mr Straw went further than ever
in proclaiming the constitution a 'victory' for the British view
of Europe. It would make the EU better managed and more accountable
to national governments and national parliaments, he said. He
contrasted the Government's 'patriotic' case for Europe against
the Tory 'fantasy' policy of renegotiating the treaty, which he
said would put Britain's 'power and prosperity' at risk.
Mr
Straw warned that a NO vote in the referendum would throw Britain
into 'crisis'. Last night euro-sceptics disputed the Foreign Secretary's
claim that the constitution text boosted Britain's interests.
They stressed that French President Jacques Chirac declared at
the end of last month that it was a victory for 'the French vision
for Europe' and a blow 'against the Anglo-Saxon vision, which
is purely free-trade, intergovernmental and sovereignist'.
Neil
O'Brien, director of the Vote No campaign, said: "Jack Straw's
new spin line that the EU Constitution is about limiting the powers
of the EU is beyond belief. The public will see straight through
it, not least because it contradicts what the Government has said
before."
Shadow
foreign secretary Michael Ancram said Ministers had caved in to
Brussels by agreeing the deal and were now spending large amounts
of taxpayers' money on spin to cover this up. Mr Ancram said:
"This is the Government of the white flag and the black propaganda."
He said it was a 'hysterical argument' that the referendum was
about being in or out of Europe, insisting that other countries
such as the Netherlands, also wanted more powers returned to national
parliaments.
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.
