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
|
Absurd,
naive and just wrong
How
the end of Britain's veto on EU immigration matters will only
make things worse - by Sir Andrew Green, Chairman of MIGRATIONWATCH
UK
The Home Offce spin machine was in top gear last Fridauy night
when it first emerged that Government was planning to abandon
our power to veto new European laws on immigrationa and asylum.
It issued a denial, went into reverse on Saturday and by yesterday
the Home Secretary, David Blunkett, reached new heights of absurdity
by claiming, presumably with a straight face, that giving up our
veto on asylum and immigration policy was the way to influence
our European partners.
How
naive! No wonder there is so little trust in what this Government
says when, on a subject as important and as sensitive as this,
it changes its tune overnight. Does it matter that we should abandon
our veto? It certainly does. It destroys our leverage in the forthcoming
negotiations in Brussels over asylum and immigration. If the other
24 countries know that we will opt out of the policy anyway, they
will ignore us.
Exactly
this happened during negotiations over the new European Union
Constitution last year.
On this very subject, asylum policy, the British delegation
proposed an amendment they said was 'fundamentally important'.
It was completely disregarded.
Even
if we opt out of a European system which we regard as hopeless,
it still matters to Britain. Anyone granted asylum in the EU has
the right to move on to Britain under the freedom of moement provisions.
So asylum in Europe can be a side door to Britain. For as long
as this remains the case, we will need to retain our leferage
on European asylum and immigration policy.
Where
has Parliament been in all this? In a nutshell, miles behind the
game. Last week they were debating a document issued by the European
Commission last summer - just as David Blunkett was packing his
bags for a meeting in Brussels which was addressing an entirely
new set of proposals on asylum and immigration. We
have, in fact, already opted into - and are subject to - four
European asylum directives with entirely inadequate public and
Parliamentary scrutiny.
As
for the future, it is simply ridiculous for the Government to
imply that our European partners will do all the sensible things
which we will no doubt suggest. David Blunkett has already been
obliged to tell the Press that he totally disagrees with the main
elements now proposed - on European border police, a joint asylum
system and common consular arrangements, for example. Apparently
he has telephoned his opposite number in the Netherlands - the
Dutch currently hold the EU presidency - to say so.
I'm
sure his Dutch colleague was much too polite to say that he didn't
care a jot because Britain would, in the end, opt out anyway.
He may not have said it, but he must have thought it. The Commission
proposals are indeed far-reaching to put it mildly. They speak
of a common asylum and immigration policy, a common asylum procedure
and a European centre for the joint processing of asylum claims.
If
you think the Home Office is a shambles when it comes to dealing
with asylum claims, then try a Euro Office. The reality is that
Britain's position, as in so many other fields, is entirely different
from that of other European countries - demographically, geographically,
adminstratively and historically.
The
pro-immigration lobby likes to talk about 'Europe's need for immigrants.
This may possibly be true for some, such as Italy or Spain, who
have a fertility rate as low as 1.2. Ours is 1.7 - 0.4 short of
the figure (2.1) needed to ensure a population replaces itself
- but light years , in demographic terms, from their situation.
The
plain fact is that our population is not declining. Even on the
government's own projections, it is set to grow by 5.6million
over the next three decades. This is equivalent to five times
the population of Birmingham, and 85% of the increase will be
due to immigrants and their descendants. South-East England, where
more than four out of five migrants are settling, is already one
of the most crowded areas of Europe. Indeed, England
as whole is now more densely populated than India.
Geographically,
the fact that Britain is an island has, in the past, enabled us
to impose tight controls at the border, allowing almost total
freedom once inside. Hence, unlike countries in continental Europe,
our adminstrative system is virtually non-existant when it comes
to personal identity checks.
Historically,
our links with a worldwide Commonwealth and the prevalence of
English as a second language throughout the world make us a much
more attractive destination than all other EU countries, except
Ireland. Furthermore, our welfare syutem and redy availability
of the NHS are an even greater lure. The basic problem is that
the other Europeans have, as a fundamental objective, an aim that
is at odds with both our history and our disposition.
It
is set out at the very beginning of the relevant section of the
draft European Constitution: "The Union shall develop a policy
with a view to ensuring the absence of any controls on persons,
whatever their nationality, when crossing internal borders."
So in this field, as in other, we simply don't fit. Yet we are
planning to accept Qualified Majority Voting for Europe's asylum
and immigration policy.
To
block a proposal, we will need at least 90 votes (out of a total
of 321). Britain has only 29. What is more, we will have no natural
allies as nobody else, except possibly Ireland, shares our interests.
In the smoke-filled rooms of Europe, every vote we garner will
have to be paid for by concessions else-where. Even then, we will
struggle to prevent changes to a Europe-wide system developing
in a way which is designed for entirely different circumstances.
Our
partners will know that we may well, in the end, opt out - so
why should they accomodate our interests? The threat of a veto
is the only way to concentrate their minds. For David Blunkett
to suggest that abandoning our veto is the way to achieve our
aims is, quite simply, absurd.
I
come back to the central point that each country faces a different
situation, both internally and in the mix of people who arrive
at its ports. Britain's situation is unique in Europe. We are
a magnet for migrants. It is the first duty of the Government
to protect our borders. Abandoning our veto is certainly not the
way to do it.
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.
