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'?