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
|
Your
migration controls would be illegal, EU tells Howard
BY
Paul Eastham and David Hughes - Daily Mail, January 25, 2005
Brussels
last night stepped in to try to block Michael Howard's plans for
radical cuts in immigration. Hours after his party set out detailed
plans to reform the system with an annual limit on asylum, the
European Commission tried to claim that the entire scheme was
illegal under European law.
Mr
Howard thrust immigration the top of the election agenda as he
vowed that all asylum seekers will be processed offshore to deter
them from coming to Britain. In the most radical shake-up in immigration
policy ever put forward by a mainstream party, he also announced
annual quotas on all immigrants.
Mr
Howard must not be cowed Comment, Daily
Mail - Jan 25, 2005
How
malignly typical of this country's politically-correct
metropolitan elite that they try to demonise Michael Howard
for daring to call for major changes in the shambles passing
for our immigration and asylum policies.
Obscene,
dangerous, desperate, ill-informed, the epithets flowed
from Left-wing politicians, liberal news-papers and representatives
of the race relations industry (all doing the dirty work
for New Labour, which knows that this subject strikes
a chord with voters).
Of
course, the sub-text of this abuse and vilification is
that the Tory leader was playing the race card. More significantly,
criticism of him has been a consistent theme in most of
the left-of-centre media - and that includes the BBC,
for which we all pay and which has a duty to be fair and
objective.
Fair
and objective? The Today programme treats Trevor Phillips
- who as chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality
and a Tony Blair crony is hardly a neutral figure - with
kid gloves when he damns Mr Howard as ill-informed.
Then
Lord Tebbit is confronted with the suggestion that the
Tories are 'creating an image of Britain under siege'.
The truth is that the Tory leader, the son of Jewish immigrants,
has every right to criticise a Government that has talked
tough yet nearly always fails to act.
And
it is not his language but that of his critics
that is inflaming this debate. Mr Howard must hold his
nerve and continue to raise an issue concerning the millions
of Britons who welcome immigrants, but also believe that
our present policies are deeply flawed.
Read
how Tony Blair has deceived us.
|
He
also pledged tighter border controls, a crackdown on bogus marriages
and an Australian-style points system to grade the skills of economic
migrants. But, despite the opposition from refugee groups, it
seemed last night that the biggest threat to the shake-up was
from EU bureaucrats. They warned that a little-known piece of
Euro-legislation, called the Qualification Directive, signed by
all 25 member states in April 2004, would stop a Tory Government
from effectively withdrawing from the 1951 United Nations convention
on refugees.
The
dramatic intervention by Europe increases controversy around an
issue certain to be a major battleground in the election. The
suggestion that Britain has already signed away the power to control
its own borders and who enters the country will only serve to
intensify calls for a total overhaul of immigration policy.
The
Qualification Directive duplicates the definition of what constitutes
a 'refugee' set out in the 1951 Convention. It put an express
obligation on all EU member states to grant asylum to anyone who
falls within that definition. However, sources immediately insisted
that a Tory Government would attempt to opt out of the rules.
And they argued that if that was not possible, a Howard Government
would insist on renegotiating its membership of Europe to allow
Britain to determine its own asylum and immigration policies.
Earlier
yesterday Ministers were careful not to attack the Tory proposals.
Instead, they questioned only whether the Tories could deliver.
Tony Blair told the BBC: "The real point about the Conservatives'
proposal is that by cutting the number of front-line immigration
staff at our borders, they will actually make the problem worse."
Labour
is claiming that Conservative plans to cut Government spending
will mean cuts in the asylum budget but the Tories have insisted
that front-line staff will be strengthened. The Prime Minister's
cautious response reveals the nervousness in Downing Street because
Labour knows it own supporters are deeply concerned about the
level of immigration. Home Secretary Charles Clarke is looking
at plans of his own to toughen the asylum and immigration machinery
which will be published within weeks.
Mr
Howard warned that the country has reached a 'turning point' on
immigration. The Tory leader - himself the son of Jewish refugees
- said "Only my party has the courage to tell the truth about
immigration and the courage to act. Some people say it is racist
to want to limit immigration. It's not. It's common sense."
Mr
Howard said there are 'literally millions of people in other countries
who would like to come and live here. Britain cannot take them
all. I think most people would agree that Britain has reached
a turning point. They know that our communities cannot successfully
absorb newcomers at today's pace."
At
the centre of the Tory policy are proposals to move the entire
asylum system offshore. Ultimately, all asylum applicants would
be immediately removed to processing centres in their home regions
and dealt with there. Britain would take only 'genuine' refugees
already in the care of the UN High Commission for Refugees. The
Tories are also committed to giving Parliament the job of setting
annual quotas for refugees, economic migrants, and the spouses
and dependents of immigrants.
Mr
Howard, while acknowledging the contributions to British society
made by generations of immigrants argued that Britain can no longer
absorb the numbers seeking to come here. Sir Andrew Green, chairman
of Migrationwatch UK, the immigration think-tank, said he was
impressed by Mr Howard's proposals. He said: "I think this
was a brave speech. These are tough and radical proposals. It's
a major step forward, but high time that one of the main political
parties addressed the issue that has long been of top concern
to the public."
Mr
Howard faced criticism from race relations activists. Commission
for Racial Equality chairman Trevor Phillips warned that Mr Howard's
announcement left the way open for racists to put the 'worst possible
construction' on his message. Mr Phillips told BBC Radio 4's TODAY
programme that the announcement 'gives space to people who will
be saying on the doorstep "nudge, nudge, wink, wink, we know
what Michael Howard is saying", This isn't really about other
Europeans. It is about keeping out people who are of a different
colour or different culture.'
Mr
Howard angrily rejected the Phillips allegation, saying that any
implication that the proposals were about skin colour were 'a
disgraceful allegation which I wholly reject'.
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.
