Regular readers of Witterings from Witney, who have followed me to Seaham, will recall I am partial to the odd pun or two. Consequently, for any new readers, I ‘translate’ the heading to this article, bearing in mind that our ‘ever-knowing’ (not) media have their finger on the pulse of important news in their reporting that ‘Our Revered (not) Leader’ is planning a cabinet reshuffle.
In view of the foregoing, the question has to be asked whether she is ‘owing’ Paterson a ‘return to government ‘ for his undoubted allegiance to her ‘programme’; or he thinks she is ‘owing’ him a ‘return to government’ for ‘promoting’ her ‘programme’ – albeit her ‘programme’ is a load of crap (of which more shortly).
This question is raised as: this was Paterson in 2014 and this is Paterson in 2017, just a few days ago speaking in Washington. There would appear to have been a change in his thinking. Originally, I thought Paterson firmly believed in UNECE becoming the ‘standard-setter’ for Eurpope – and thus replacing the European Union – thereby allowing nation states of the continent of Europe to retain their ‘sovereignty’. Unfortunately it appears he is no different to any other politician in that it seems he is more concerned with his ‘political career path’ and thus personal advancement.
The foregoing begs the question: just where does the allegiance of our politicians lie, bearing in mind the ‘path to power’ that our current system of democracy allows – and as such, is this current system one that we should allow to continue? Should not the allegience of an elected politician be first to those who elected him or her, rather than to the party which they represent, or their own careers? If the answer to that question is the first, then should not their electorate have the power to remove them immediately – following ‘due process’ – where they cease to do just that, namely to represent the wishes of their constituents? The foregoing can apply to any other current politician you care to name – be that Davis, Fox, Redwood, Corbyn, Jenkins, Starmer etc – the political ‘colour’ matters not.
To turn to Theresa May, the same question(s) can be asked; namely, just who is she representing and where lies her allegiance? During her recent statement in the House of Commons, just why does this woman – who professes to know, but does not – still maintain EFTA membership has no say and no vote in ‘matters EU’ when Norway – a member of EFTA – sits on more than 200 ‘EU committees’ and thereby has input into such law; sits on UN ‘standard-setting’ bodies (such wp29 and Codex) and thereby has ‘input’ into standards before they even reaches the EU? For those born under the sign of Libra one of the qualities supposedly inherited by such people is that of leadership; unfortunately Theresa May (born 1st October) exhibits only failure. In her dealings with Brexit one is justified in stating that if anyone has put the cart before the ‘hoarse’ then it is her. Like all her predecessors, Theresa May will retire to a well-paid sinecure, having left behind her a mess from which we will all suffer – with the exception, naturally, of Theresa May.
Any nation can only be as great as its people; and until the people of this nation wake up and realize that our current system of democracy is no longer fit for purpose (likewise those that are elected) and demand change – said change to include a system for day-to-day control of their politicians – then I fear this nation of ours will continue down the road to ruin.