Beyond Belief

Paul Kingsnorth, writing in the Guardian, echoes the point that so many of our laws enacted by the present government, applicable to England, have only been passed with the assistance of MPs who are not elected by English voters - in other words, highlighting the 'West Lothian Question'.

What is intriguing is the point Kingsnorth raises in his article which, in effect, he considers an affront to democracy:

"Now imagine that the laws your representatives vote for can be overruled by representatives of other nations, who also sit in your parliament. These other representatives do not stand for election in your country. You cannot hire them or fire them. They represent voters from other nations entirely; nations in which your representatives cannot interfere because they have their own parliaments. These other nations make their own laws. They also make yours – whether you like it or not."

This article perpetuates the myth that MPs govern this country, one that is repeated by every other branch of the MSM. If 'people do not stand for election in your country, if you cannot hire or fire them and if these people make your laws, whether you like it or not' - if that is not a reason for Britain's withdrawal from the European Union then I don't know what is!

Kingsnorth trumpets the movement Power 2010, who are putting forward constitutional changes it recomments for the betterment of the country. Along with the English Democrats, who are also campaigning for an English Parliament, Power 2010 is putting the cart before the horse. What is the point in changes to an institution which is no longer fit for purpose, which can no longer do the job which it is supposed to do? With the EU instituting the majority of laws by which this country is governed, what is the point of any 'national parliament'?

Setting to one side the vexed question of the EU, the basis by which our country is 'governed' by those tasked with the job of so doing leaves much to be desired. For example, Statutory Instruments (SIs) are a means by which ministers can make more detailed orders, rules or regulations to Acts of Parliament, as the latter often only contain a broad framework and SIs are used to provide the necessary detail that would be considered too complex to include in the body of an Act. Without going into too much detail about SIs, suffice it to say that SIs cannot, except in extremely rare instances, be amended or adapted by either House, each House simply expressing its wish for them to be annuled or passed into law. 

I have, previously, used the phrase 'democratised dictatorship' to describe the state of our politics today and nothing illustrates this more than this post by Ian Parker-Joseph in respect of the 239th SI to be laid before Parliament this year. When you have a government deciding that certain of its departments/quangos/agencies, or related matters of policy, cannot be investigated - that is democracy? Where politicians talk endlessly about transparency and then decide that some matters - including pet projects like climate change and the environment - are now 'no-go' areas, in respect of information requests, that is democracy?

Power 2010 presently has as the change people have voted into the top position, the introduction of a proportional voting system. And how, pray, does that make our country more democratic, bearing in mind that any voting system, whilst this country is a member of the EU, has no bearing on who actually makes our laws? In second place is a proposal to abolish ID cards and roll back the database state. Very laudable, however the EU is proposing just such an ID card, which would be compulsory, coupled with an expansion of the 'database state', so the object of this proposal is???? In third place is a fully elected second chamber. The same comments apply to this suggestion as to that of the one in top place. In fourth place is a call for a written constitution. Again, the object of this proposal is???? Whilst this country is still subject to the rulings of the Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice, such a proposal is a pointless exercise.

When will Power 2010 and the English Democrats, and there are other such bodies, realise that until this country is once again 'independent' and thus able to decide its own laws  - for instance, with whom we may trade and who may and may not enter the country regardless of nationality - any of their proposals are no more than 'pie in the sky' objectives - in other words a total waste of time, effort and money. How many of those voting on Power 2010 fully understand the EU and the ramifications that membership imposes on us? How many of those voting understand the present workings of Parliament? How many of those voting have a brain?