Friday 4 February 2011

Time for an English Tea Party

Imagine, if you will, living in a socialist super state. Imagine your democracy as a charade; imagine your national independence as an illusion. In the end it does not really matter who you vote for or what you vote for, because policy, matters affecting the fundamental interests of your country, will be decided elsewhere, by unelected officials or by unelected judges. Imagine yourself as a citizen of the European Union.

For years we have seen our independence in England being eroded, powers taken by or freely given to the socialist oligarchy in Brussels. The previous government signed up to a Human Rights Act, allowing judges to intrude into politics, not in the way that the Supreme Court does in the United States, interpreting and upholding the Constitution, but challenging and subverting the will of Parliament, the sovereign political body in the land; in effect subverting the Constitution.

The European Court of Human Rights, a worthless set of placemen in Strasbourg, people who know nothing of the legal traditions of this country, nothing of our tradition of common law, has decreed that prisoners in British jails should be given the right to vote. It does not really matter what Parliament thinks because Parliament has no say in the matter; the people have no say in the matter.

When is enough enough? Why, when it’s far too much. Pushed and pushed back into a corner its time to turn and face the enemy. I make no apology for using that word: so far as I am concerned the European Union is the enemy, European judges are the enemy, these supine individuals whose tradition is all one of decrees, diktats and duces. I have absolute contempt for the very concept of ‘human rights’ defined by these types.

Yes, its time to turn and fight. David Cameron, the Prime Minister, rather than giving way to Strasbourg, has responded to the anger of Parliament and his party, allowing his own MPs a free vote on the issue when the matter comes before the House next week. Conservative MPs have decided that a “line has to be drawn in the sand” after decades of kow-towing to the European courts. It is, perhaps, the most important test of Parliamentary sovereignty in our recent history. The government is looking for the moral authority – that’s all it has – to go back to Strasbourg and argue that the will of Parliament should prevail.

Will it? Personally I’m not confident. This country is bound by laws that did not emerge as an act of the popular will. Power surrendered is power almost impossible to regain. Defiance of the courts means that thousands of prisoners will acquire the technical right to begin legal proceedings for compensation, thus proving beyond reasonable doubt that crime does pay in our Brave New Socialist World that has such people in it. The only way to regain out freedom is to get out of Europe. It’s time for a tea party here, time for a declaration of independence.


  1. Anna,

    You will, I hope, forgive me quoting myself on your blog:

    "Anyway, leaving that to one side, let us look at the reasons behind this latest example of political assertion - what Benedict Brogan refers to as an important question, namely who rules. Whilst on the subject of who rules, let us consider Raab who ends his comment piece thus:

    "And finally, on the issue of who is in charge, this backbench-initiated debate – a mechanism put in place by the Coalition to give ordinary MPs a greater say – will strengthen Parliament as a check against the executive. If MPs can use this procedure to influence Government policy, then Britain’s elected lawmakers will have acquired some real clout."

    If backbench-initiated debate is a procedure that can be used to influence Government policy, why cannot it be used to initiate a debate on something that really matters like a referendum on EU membership for the British people? The right to legislate on votes for prisoners is but part of the right of this country to decide its own laws, which is what a referendum on EU membership is so one has to ask Raab what is the difference? Of course Raab is not really interested in giving the people a say on anything as witnessed by the fact he voted against Peter Bone's amendment just two days ago........Note also that it is a case of MPs standing up for their rights against Europe - which is all they seem interested in, namely their rights. What about the people's rights against Europe?

    Those who consider themselves to be the elite amongst the political detritus that inhabits Westminster, as with the detritus, truly do have neither honour nor principle."

    Just how long will it be before the people of this land take to the streets to remove that detritus?

  2. You should have listened to Sir Oswald Mosley .

  3. Human rights are very important and must have a place of honour but sometimes people forget that some people make a lot of damage to a nation or to other people and they need punishment, justice must teach them, human right sometimes help prisioners and they do not look the consequences of the violent acts. I believe European Union are good relationship, more than a unique nation because they have more power, I think England need negotiate, all links have hard times, different thoughts must reach a only view, negotiate is the key always. I think England lose power being alone. A kiss. Mario.

  4. In the 1975 referendum there was a 66% vote in favour of the UK remaining in the EU - a proportion that I thought was criminal at the time...

  5. To paraphrase the postscript of the old American t.v. show Dragnet, "the enemy's the same; only the places are changed." Hope you don't mind if I link & re-post in part.

  6. Yes, human rights have rather got out of hand in Western countries. The moderate left (having given up on old-fashioned socialism) seems now to define itself largely in terms of extending the scope of human rights to absurd lengths.

    On the EU, what a monster it has become, ineffectual on so many fronts and yet still managing to make trouble! Is British withdrawal really possible do you think?

  7. An interesting post.

    Didn't David Cameron offer the British people a 'cast-iron' guarantee of a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty? Personally I doubt he'd ever be willing to take the step of leaving Europe. It's a bit like Thatcher. She was very good with the anti-European rhetoric but if you actually look at her governments policies Britain became much more integrated into Europe between 1979 and 1990. The same thing happened with John Major's government and Labour after that. They all spoke tough on Europe but then failed to follow through.

    If we want more democracy in Britain then the first step would probably be to reform the voting system we currently have and possibly have more referendums.

  8. Hi Ana - well said (as always). You could be right about having a Tea Party.

    Unfortunately not one of our mainstream political parties would have the nerve to go to the people of this country and actually ask them whether they wish to remain in the EU or not because they know what answer they would get :-) A resounding NO

    The EU is a convenient (and lucrative) refuge for ex British parliamentarians. Plenty of examples but I'm thinking of the Kinnock dynasty as one. I wonder how many hundreds of thousands if not millions they have earned from their EU expenses over the years..

    None of our dear politicians want to see an end of this gravy train.


  9. Calvin, those four words tell me more about your expectations here than four hundred. :-)

  10. WfW, I don't mind in the least. I absolutely agree with your sentiments here. I will come and have a look at the original post. Many thanks.

  11. Anthony, a tad before my time. :-) Actually, you should have a look at the causes Mosley embraced after WWII. He was one of the earliest exponents of European union.

  12. CI, I think the people at the time were systematically misled over the implications of membership. But at least people of your generation had a choice. We never have, which truly is criminal!

  13. Mark, in the short term the answer has to be no. Who knows what the future will bring. The irony is that most people here still do not understand just how much their lives are controlled by centres of power away from Westminster.

  14. Matthew, I certainly agree that the people have the right to be consulted on major changes in the way we are governed.

  15. Abdul, thank you...three times over. :-)

  16. Mario, in the words of a certain actress - I want to be alone. :-)