Saturday, 18 December 2010

Sovereignty

It can, I hope, be agreed that one of the definitions of sovereignty when related to a nation state is the ability of that nation state to set its own laws; to decide its own level of taxation; to decide the formation of its society; that sovereignty is not vested in Parliament but in the people themselves and that Parliament is merely a passing parade of delegates elected by the people to carry out their wishes and, probably more importantly, be able to hold to account those that carry out 'government'. It is today, questionable just who actually does all the above when looking at the United Kingdom. William Hague famously stated, during the European Union Bill debate in the House of Commons, that our national parliament is 'sovereign' - yet this is palpably not so.

If this were so, we would not, for example, have:

1. The situation whereby laws originating in another place being 'copied and pasted' onto the statute book and which our national parliament is unable to question or amend in any way whatsoever. What pray is the point of making ministers conduct reviews of EU legislation every five years when it is impossible to revoke any of that legislation?


2. The situation whereby the national government of the United Kingdom is unable to limit immigration from outside the European Union, especially when the European Union agrees to grant visas to certain countries, thereby removing the nationals of those countries from the category of 'outside the European Union'?


3. The ironic situation whereby our national government is held to be unlawful in implementing an immigration cap because it did not consult parliament. The word 'ironic' is used because how our national government can be accused of acting unlawfully because it did not consult parliament is illogical when considering that laws are enacted everyday from Brussels, who do not 'consult our parliament'.


3. The situation whereby the United Kingdom can be forced to provide a sum of money to bail-out another EU Member State. Cameron may well laud the fact that from 2013 a new mechanism will be in place whereby the United Kingdom will not be so liable, but the question has to be asked: And until then, what if any other country should need assistance? It is all very well for Cameron to praise himself that he has agreement with Germany and France that Article 122 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) will not be used for future bail-outs and in confirmation of that, that "heads of state and government therefore agreed that it should not be used for such purposes", unfortunately some of us have noted that the words 'should not' have been used instead of 'will not' - thus rendering that statement of political intent, as with most statements of political intent - totally meaningless.


4. The situation whereby public money is being spent for the purpose of a political party's benefit. Witness IPSA's rules on hotel reimbursement costs:
"An MP would need to explain in the notes attached their claim the basis on which they thought the House would sit late. This could mean, for example, noting that the Whips advised him or her that there may be votes after 10 pm which he or she was required to attend."
That 'required to attend' finally confirms that MPs are not representatives of their constituents but are purely in parliament to represent their party.


5. The situation whereby a treaty, signed on behalf of the British people and on which they were not consulted, is changed without their permission. A treaty is akin to a contract and a contract cannot be amended but with the agreement of both parties to that contract, yet once again the British people are denied a voice to this 'change'. This relates to point 3 and begs the questions: (a), if this 'change' does not alter the powers of the EU, then why is it needed; and (b), if it is needed, then the legality of using Clause 122 to bail-out another member state has to be called into question.


6. The situation whereby  - as Charles Moore states - we are:
"a nation ruled by a large, subsidised, semi-permanent political, financial and bureaucratic class that seems impervious to voter's wishes."
as a result of the political elite having usurped powers from the people, who in turn have acquiesced to that usurpation. This has led to the situation that freedom of thought, word and deed are now only those that we are 'allowed' to have; that with the compliance of the media the political elite ensure that only the three 'main' parities - and no other party - may partake in the democratic process on a level playing field; and that only 'they' may decide who is 'acceptable' as the leader of a minority party.


7. The situation whereby our present crop of politicians continue their mantra of 'devolving power', as in a true self-governing democracy there would be no need to devolve power. In any self-governing nation, as I have previously maintained, any national parliament would only be involved in matters of defense, foreign affairs, immigration etc - which would mean not many days spent 'sitting', fewer MPs and less cost - including expenses. All other matters would be dealt with by local authorities and their people - with use of binding referendums.
There have been comments on this and other blogs in which it is proposed that a mass uprising amongst the population of our country will be the only means by which we can rid our nation of the corrupt political and bureaucratic disease from which it now suffers.

Perhaps we need to organise a 'dry-run'?

8 comments:

john in cheshire said...

We need the English equivalent of the IRA. They took a long time, but were eventually successful in getting most of what they want; didn't they? And I think the liberation of England will also take decades and will need violence to achieve it. Once it starts, that is.

Witterings From Witney said...

Not too sure about IRA tactics, jic, but what about a "dry-run" just to show them what we could do?

Cheshire Lad said...

Also in Cheshire- I don't espouse violence against people or property, but I certainly agree that some sort of uprising is going to happen. It's just a matter of time. The Scottish and Welsh jokers are just taunting us with, for example, their proposals for tuition fees. This latest capitulation by our pathetic excuse for a government has now pushed me to the very brink, politically speaking. I now actively want an insurrection, where the English people rise up and rid ourselves of the corrupt troughing political class, with their ridiculous, unworkable metro centric PC approach. Get rid of them, along with the senior civil servants and implement a structure where they work for us.

Witterings From Witney said...

Cheshire Lad: Do not misunderstand me, I too am a peaceable fellow, but when democratic means (the ballot box) has failed all that is left is revolutionary means - and if that results in an uprising then so be it!

They have been warned!

john in cheshire said...

WfW,CL, I'm not saying I want or would take pleasure in violence to achieve the objective of returning our country to a path of civilisation. My family have made the sacrifices during both the first and second world wars, to ensure that I have lived a life free from fear; from having to participate in a war, or to have to personally put myself in danger to protect my family; i'm 58 and i will be forever grateful for their sacrifices on my behalf. But, if my understanding of history is correct, nothing ever seems to come about peacefully. Those in power just laugh at anyone who asks politely that they desist from their wicked ways. So, I suppose I am saying that I conclude it is inevitable that the changes we want to how our country organises itself, will only be brought about by violence. I don't think a mass uprising is what will happen, rather a small band of dedicated guerrillas will be the spur. They will be protected by the mass population, so that they can carry out the actions that help to clarify the minds of our oppressors. I'm probably being naive but isn't that how all revolutions come about?

Witterings From Witney said...

jic: And that is how it will start, but once started it will not be long before an army is recruited. When it becomes an army then the politicos will know they have lost.

bullopill said...

One way to show our "lords and masters" that they have disregarded us for long enough and that we want no more could be to boycott the 2011 census.

If only a few do this, they'll likely be fined or end up in gaol. But imagine how powerful a shockwave would go through the self-appointed ruling classes if, say, a million people or more refused to co-operate with the census? A census which, I believe, will already ask instrusive questions the Tories said they were against when in opposition.

There are already some Facebook groups relating to this cause, so the word is spreading. I've joined, and suggested to all my FB friends that they should consider doing the same.

Anonymous said...

i will be no longer filing my income tax return and not paying it until, not sure when! I will not contribute to this pile of corruption any longer. I have an unrebutted affidavit with Dave, Theresa and Danny (he also got the birth certificate). I will not take anything from the state and I do not expect any money to go the other way. My own non-violent protest. Try it, it'll make them listen if enough revolt.