Albeit when the only current ‘sensible’ intrusion into said debate, by means of a launch, is being undertaken by The Leave Alliance on the same day that the media will be concentrating on ‘Budget News’ does but beggar belief – but I digress.
@LiberalLeave has published this, under the heading: Liberal Leaders Believe: at which point one has to ask:
- If power should be held as closely as possible to individuals and their communities, then why is there not a belief in direct democracy; and thus The Harrogate Agenda, coupled with FlexCit?
- If EU bureaucracy is so far removed from ordinary citizens for us to have any meaningful power over its decisions, with many crucial meetings held behind closed doors; then cannot the same be said for Representative Democracy?
- If Liberal values are global – and should not be limited just to one continent; then why no mention of our exclusion, because of our membership of the European Union, from global standard setting bodies such as UNECE?
This is but another example of a political grouping attempting to ‘cement’ their position in the existing undemocratic system of democracy under which we, in the UK, currently live. It is something we see day after day from every political party, even from a party termed Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy (EFDD) – aka Ukip – which if ever there existed a misnomer, theirs is it. All existing political parties (Con/Lab/LibDem/ Ukip) all profess a wish to devolve power – but look at their proposals in depth; and they all contain ultimate central control; something no different from that of the aims of the European Union.
When we look at the EU Commission’s wish to create a European Border and Coast Guard we find they require the ability to: be empowered to require Member States take timely corrective action. In urgent situations that put the functioning of the Schengen area at risk and when deficiencies have not been remedied, the Agency will be able to step in to ensure that action is taken on the ground even where there is no request for assistance from the Member State concerned or where member State considers that there is no need for additional intervention. Wherefore sovereignty? (Emphasis mine)
As we, the electorate, have ‘no say’ on that which the EU Commission proposes – nor do our elected governments – once again the question arises: wherefore democracy? We heard from David Cameron, when he usurped office in May 2010, how the people were the ‘masters’ and politicians their ‘servant’ – yet this is the man who, with his desire to continue membership of the European Union, wishes to continue the deficit in democracy whereby the politicians are the masters and the people the servants.
If the people are the masters and politicians the servants, just how does this equate with his statement in 2010? If people are the masters and politicians the servants, then why are the masters being subjected to untruths and lies being promulgated by their servants? Why does such a servant refuse to respond to charges laid by his master?
While we, the electorate, remain ‘servants’ who are of no consequence to our masters – aka sheep – we deserve to be corralled/penned for the good of our masters. We all remember the series: on television: One man and his dog; and we also remember that quite often there was one sheep that did not wish to be ‘corralled/penned’.
As it happens today was Budget Day, a day when the Chancellor of the Exchequer ‘informed’ his ‘masters’ just how much of his masters income he would demand in taxation (incorporating custodial and economic sanctions, if not paid) in order that he might continue with his economic policies; a subject over which, again, his masters have no say. This situation promptly begs a question: just who, in their right mind, would give a contractor they have employed a blank cheque to carry out work on which they have not previously received a detailed estimate?
How much more ‘daylight robbery’ not only of taxpayers, but also the electorate, does it take before both realise that Demand #5:
No tax, charge or levy shall be imposed, nor any public spending authorised, nor any sum borrowed by any national or local government except with the express approval the majority of the people, renewed annually on presentation of a budget which shall first have been approved by their respective legislatures.
of The Harrogate Agenda (THA) is not only sensible, but also to their advantage?
Unfortunately I am forced to return to an oft-asked question – one to which, to date, no answer has been given by those now ‘in charge’ of THA; which is: why is THA stage 6 (tail-end-charlie) of FlexCit? If democracy matters so much – which The Leave Alliance would have us believe – I can but repeat the preceding question. If the people are sovereign then does it not follow that THA should be Demand #2?
It pains me to raise the point; but as Cameron usurped control of the UK in 2010, so what was initially envisaged as a ‘movement’ and thus one driven by the people (THA) has been usurped by others for their own ends.
You see, at the end of the day, it all boils down to ‘control’ – and therein lies a problem for the ‘common man’.
Which means the common man had better start taking an interest in politics, otherwise when disagreeing with his government, he might just as well say ‘baa’………..