In The Times today, on the Opinion page, John Redwood writes an ‘open letter’ to William Hague, one with the title: Is the Foreign Office fighting for Britain? Following the usual opening pleasantry of Dear William, Redwood begins: The Foreign Office review of the balances of EU competences — documenting the powers that Brussels has over Britain — is important work. The title may not be catchy, but it is about our democracy and identity as a nation. He continues: The six chapters published so far read as whitewash to justify the existing settlement. The reader is alerted to the overarching bias of the exercise in the first sentence: “Membership of the EU is in the UK’s national interests.
Redwood wants the FCO to start with an honest catalogue of all the powers the EU now enjoys. He then believes this would allow political parties to then set out which powers should be brought back to the UK and which should remain at EU level. This is a man who then further believes that: our democracy needs a new relationship.
There will, no doubt, be readers who believe that I should ‘lay off’ criticising Redwood just as they believe my castigation of the likes of Carswell and Hannan are unjustified, in that they are convinced those three are part of the ”good guys’. For any politician who can believe in (a) a system of democracy which has no vestige of democracy within it; and (b) that some powers affecting their nation, whose well being they hold in their hands on behalf of others, can be sub-contracted to another, higher, legislative body should promptly be committed to Broadmoor!
That Redwood, Carswell and Hannan are but Judas Goats leading their sheep to their eventual appointment at the political slaughterhouse is beyond doubt That all three can write blithely about democracy, when such does not exist but a system of democratised dictatorship does, should ring alarm bells in any person who has the ability of thought. They write about independence of our nation, by which they mean their independence, not the independence of those they are elected to serve and whose views they are supposed to represent – hence they wish to perpetuate the existing system of democratised dictatorship.
Since when has a nation been the personal fifedom of our elected politicians, to do with as they wish? Does not a nation belong to the people within it and should it not be their voice that dictates that nation’s – as well as their own – direction of travel? That Redwood, Carswell and Hannan – as do undoubtedly the remainder of their class – seem unable to accept that falling membership of political parties is something that continues and thus demonstrates that people no longer are content to devote hours of their time supporting them beggars belief.
This latter point is one mentioned by Ross Clark in an article to be published in the Speccie in two days time, but is currently available online. In his article, Clark nails the problem with representative democracy where democracy is concerned. He writes:
Yet every election forces us to choose between baskets of policies. The political system offers us only fixed menus when most of us really want to go à la carte.
Here, although Clark does not wish to mention it – assuming he has even considered it – we have the first unspoken suggestion that representative democracy does not and cannot work; and it means that if we want à la carte then the only way to achieve that state is to adopt a system of direct democracy. On this point of an à la cart option, Clark continues:
But what if convention were to be abandoned and the Prime Minister and the main offices of state could be directly elected? The possibility that any MP could become Prime Minister would encourage independent candidates to come forward, who could stand on their own genuine beliefs, not those fed to them by party managers (or donors). No longer would an incoming government have a mandate to enact a single manifesto, with whips on hand to bully MPs into line; every policy would have to command support of the House of Commons on its own merits. Then the country could simultaneously vote — as it would choose to do — for both welfare reform and a mansion tax.
Yet again we find Clark highlighting the deficits of representative democracy, but once again seemingly unable to take the next logical step. If we wish to vote for welfare reform and a mansion tax, why on earth does that have to have an effect countrywide? Why cannot smaller units, such as County Councils, decide that; and, more importantly, why cannot the people in each County Council decide that which they want and insist on their Council providing just that?
That which Clark would like to see is but the tip of what the 6 Demands would provide – political freedom for the people and an end to the servitude which they presently suffer under representative democracy, a system that is by its nature one that is dictatorial.
No doubt like many others I am frustrated that those who present themselves as opinion-formers/political commentators appear unable to think logically – and ‘outside the box’. When we have politicians inside the box; and whose livelihood depends on maintain their seat inside the box; and opinion formers/political commentators who appear to have not one logical reasoning process among them – then all we, the people, can look forward to is a continuance of the status quo.
Unless we, perhaps, start thinking for ourselves?