Implementing the Will of the People

Mr Corbyn, leader of the opposition in Parliament, has claimed that it would be an anti democratic abuse of power should the government remove the United Kingdom from the European Union while an election campaign is underway.

I can understand if Mr Corbyn thinks such removal undesirable but I fail to see how it can be anti-democratic. This claim is sophistry. The people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the EU on 23 June 2016 – more than three years ago, and if anything is an abuse of power and anti-democratic it is the fact three years later the UK has not left the EU. OK, leaving the EU would be complicated and would take time but three years?

The vote was a tight run thing, but that is no reason to discount it. There are many whose prosperity will be adversely affect by the UK leaving the EU, and that too is no reason avoid implementing the vote.

Either we are a democracy or we are not a democracy. If we are a democracy then we must implement the will of the people, even if the people’s will might make us poorer or create some inconveniences. Of course, once we have left there is nothing to prevent political parties campaigning in the next election to re-join the EU, and if those parties so campaigning win enough seats the UK will rejoin the EU – that is how democracy works.

Democracy might well be inconvenient, unwise, unsound economically, foolish, raucous, troublesome, exasperating, loathsome, appalling and have all sorts of other undesirable features but it is the least worse system of government that we have discovered and infinitely better than rule by dictatorship, autocracy, or monarchy, or oligarchy, or bureaucracy, or by the military, or by a select and privileged coterie of like minded people determined to impose their will on the people they govern.

What did People Vote for in the Referendum held Three Years ago?

A change of Prime Minister brings optimism in some and despair in others. Those who started with optimism usually find after a year or two that their optimism was misplaced. Those who reacted with despair usually find out that things are not quite as bad as they feared.  His key policy will be to brexit the UK  from the EU within the next three months and six days.

That is what we voted for, or was it? Continue reading

Does Europe Exist?

There has been a great deal of spoken and written words spent on the European Union, which seeks to create a European State, but as far as I can see no one has really thought about what Europe really is, and more importantly does it exist at all? There is geography, history, culture and economics to consider. Continue reading

Demography Democracy and Gerrymandering

It seems to me that politicians arguing against Brexit do so because they cannot achieve their political aims by democracy as it exists in the United Kingdom but they can achieve their political aims by the rule of the European Union, if EU law over rides the law of these islands.

For example, we can look at the issue of environmental policy. The UK has generally adopted environmental policies that are not terribly helpful to the environment. The EU has apparently adopted slightly more helpful environmental policies. Therefore the political parties who favour more helpful to the environment policies prefer EU rule to the rule of a democratic United Kingdom. Therefore they are against Brexit because they cannot achieve their ends through the UK ballot box.

Certain politicians believe that the rights of employees should overwhelming prevail against the rights of employers. If the UK is left as a self governing nation there is a real risk that at some time in the future democracy through the elections at the ballot box will adversely change workers rights whereas they are confident that the EU, an autocratic bureaucracy, will be much less likely to do this, and so they are against Brexit.

There are other examples in areas of economic policy, taxation and laws. In essence those against Brexit generally oppose Brexit because they do not trust the voters of the United Kingdom to adhere to their favoured policies, but they can trust the EU or so they think.

Now the policies of those against Brexit may be marvelous or may be appalling. I do not make that judgment. The point I make is that it is for voters in a state to decide (more or less) what policies of what government the state should enact.

Those against Brexit are merely gerrymandering on a grand scale.They prefer to manipulate electoral boundaries so as to favour the rule of the EU over the democratically elected governments of the United Kingdom.

So democracy is out voted by an institution which really has no ideals other than economic ideals. The famous “four freedoms of the EU are all ones that we would not normally consider as freedoms at all. They are the free movement of goods, services, capital and persons within the EU. These are not what we traditionally think of as freedoms. We think of life, liberty, freedom of expression and freedom to elect those who govern us.  The four so called freedoms of the EU do no more than provide what large corporations and multinationals require – trading, finance and a work force. These so called freedoms are not to be enjoyed by those outside the EU. A freedom is a universal concept that should apply to everyone, not a local concept applying to members of a club.

Sovereignty of a nation is hard won. Many of the EU member states won their sovereignty as a result of sacrifices made by the United Kingdom and the United States. Others won their sovereignty as a result financial expenditure by the UK and the USA on defence, which ultimately wore out the old USSR.

The concept of sovereignty is an important one in a democratic context. If there is no sovereignty in a state there cannot be democracy there, and if there is no democracy then we as individuals cannot enjoy our individuality.

 

 

That is a lot of landfill!

The government has printed some 30 million glossy brochures and has delivered them to every household in the United Kingdom. The brochures set out the government’s case for remaining in the United Kingdom and a debate is raging as to whether the government should have used public funds to undertake this, without giving those who are urging a “leave” vote a similar opportunity. Continue reading

To be in or not to be in; that is the question

To be in, or not to be in, that is the question that the citizens of the United Kingdom will have to answer on 23 June 2016 when they vote in the sea of troubles that will comprise the referendum.

There are three matters that should influence a voters’ decision; different voters will give different weight to each matter.

  1. Freedom; will we enjoy more freedom within the EU or without it?
  2. Prosperity; will we enjoy a better standard of living in the EU or outside the EU?
  3. Safety; will we be safer within by being part of the EU by being outside the EU?

Continue reading

Migrants: what we should do

The problem of migrants in Calais seems insoluble and will certainly remain insoluble unless we recognise some fundamental truths about the people who exodus from their homelands to the Jungle Camp and then formulate a solution that is based on the true situation, not on the situation as we would like it to be or as our prejudices may determine. The starting point is recognising the following facts. Continue reading