Tag Archives: DD4UK

A conundrum

From the Gatestone Institute comes an interesting article, one authored by Judith Bergman.

She poses the questions whether: (a) is it not time to review priorities in regard to citizenship for those who have chosen to fight against those countries whose citizenship they hold; (b) whether it it is time to rethink the idea, as enshrined in the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, which prohibits governments from revoking a person’s nationality if it leaves them stateless; and (c) that a terrorist is a poor, traumatized victim who needs help – which seems to be a recurring theme among European politicians – because he/she has a ‘right’ to that citizenship. But what about the rights of the poor, traumatized citizens who elected these politicians and who suffer from the actions of those who abrogated their citizenship in order to kill it?

Underlying all the above – and not to be forgotten – is, of course, the question of ‘rights’; and in this regard it must surely also raise the question of continued participation in the 1951 Geneva Convention on the Treatment of Refugees, and also the modification or withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights. It can be argued that both the 1951 Convention and that of 1961, whilst enacted with the best of intentions was not — as is usual with most political decisions/agreements – not ‘thought through’ in regard to the possible end ramifications.

It can also be argued that during the June 2016 EU Referendum not one aspect of the preceding paragraph was discussed or even considered by any of those on either side – bar, to my knowledge,  one exception – namely FlexCit.

It will be acknowledged, by any reasonable individual, that currently decisions are taken by our politicians; and those decisions are taken without any consultation with the people of this nation. More importantly, under representative democracy we, the people, have no means whereby we can challenge and demand a rethink (or negation) of those decisions.

Over the last few days we have had two ex-Prime Ministers informing us that (a) a second referendum is necessary and that (b) Remainers must have a voice in Brexit. Where was the people’s voice when Blair and his cohorts decided to ‘throw open’ the UK’s doors to make the UK more multi-cultural , whilst ‘rubbing the rights nose in diversity’? Where was the people’s voice – ie a referendum – when the other ex-Prime Minister ‘railroaded’ through Parliament the Maastricht Treaty, a treaty of such gigantic proportions?

For how much longer will we continue to allow someone who has managed to surface from a pile of crud to attain the position of a despot in what is supposed to be a democracy? For how much longer will the electorate continue to allow their franchise to be reduced to voting for the remaining crud to fill the Green Benches? Perhaps the time has come wherein we must agree to pay more tax  to cover the cost of the ’embossed stationary’ they require for their ‘farsical’ behaviour?

The time has surely come whereby our democracy needs a ‘make-over’ – in which case those of who who agree should immediately head over to dd4uk.com.

Tsk – you still here?

 

 

The right to rule?

It would seem that those we elect rely on a mistaken belief, based on ‘Parliamentary Democracy’, that they alone have the ‘right to rule’ the people of the United Kingdom. This allows them to believe that, through the system of representative democracy, they ‘own’ the United Kingdom based on the idea they represent the people of the United Kingdom – which they most definitely do not.

While one sees MPs such as David Lammy stating he will vote against triggering Article 50 come what may  and Owen Smith openly stating he will use any vote in an attempt to get another referendum to overthrow the result of the first; no way can MPs maintain they represent the views of the people. It is then the question has to be asked: wherefore democracy?

Anyone who has either read the reports in Hansard of debates in the House of Commons – or watched them on Parliament tv – cannot but feel that MPs exhibit a dearth of knowledge – and thus understanding – of matters EU. This also raises another question: just why are they there and how, logically, are they able to demand a voice on the timing of notification under Article 50? When one peruses the members sitting on the Select Committee for Exiting the European Union it is hard to find one who has any knowledge worthy of note about the subject matter.

If there is anguish among some of the electorate at the ineptitude of our politicians, there is probably just as much frustration with the media which appears populated with journalists and commentators of similar ineptitude where knowledge of matters EU is concerned – not that they reserve their ineptitude just on matters EU. Until the judgment of the Supreme Court in January (probably) we will, no doubt, have to suffer more of the drivel such as appeared in the media today.

It is perhaps pertinent to recall Shakespeare’s Hamlet and the words of Marcellus who states: Something is rotten in the state of Denmark (Act 1 Scene 4).  An argument can be made that the phrase ‘state of Denmark’ rather than just ‘Denmark’ is used as it implies the fish is rotting from the head down—all is not well at the top of the political hierarchy. Not just where the EU is concerned, we can also recall Hamlet’s words in Act 1 Scene2, that Denmark is an unweeded garden of things rank and gross in nature.

The words of Marcellus and Hamlet about Denmark are also pertinent where the United Kingdom is concerned. So why do we, the people, allow ourselves to suffer our nation to rot from the head down? Why should we allow our nation to become an unweeded garden of things rank and gross in nature?

The reason why I have set up DD4UK.com is to show people that they can put an end to the problems we in this nation suffer, it is possible for them to take back control of that which is rightfully theirs – their lives and the future of their nation. In so doing they can stop the rot and make this land once again ‘green and pleasant’.

 

The hypocrisy of MPs

Following the recent High Court decision on the ability of the Executive to arbitrarily decide when and how Article 50 notification is given, a court case which our all-knowing executive arm of our Government lost, I am amazed at the number of MPs ‘queuing up to proclaim the ‘Sovereignty of Parliament’.

I have, therefore, to ask those MPs just where were they – and their predecessors – during the last four decades plus – when the sovereignty they so prize has been steadily eroded under their very noses?

This ruling of the HIgh Court has been taken by some as an excuse to subvert the Brexit process – witness such as David Lammy on BBC News Channel today (no link) stating that he would be voting against the triggering of Article 50 regardless.

Those like Lammy probably account for the fact that MPs voted 6 to 1 for the referendum, knowing full well that the referendum on 23rd June this year only had advisory status as against being binding – whilst also knowing full they could then ‘get a second bite at the cherry’. Yet did not the Government issue a pamphlet during said referendum stating: This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide. By that statement they, the Government, gave the impression that it was binding.  Either the Government spoke with ‘forked tongue’, or  in common with most politicians, they did not consider the ramifications of that which they wrote.

We now turn to the fact that, in granting the referendum, the Government decided that the question of whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union was one they felt unable to answer so they passed the decision to the people. In so doing, did they not abrogate the ‘Sovereignty of Parliament’ –  in which case just what the hell are they now ‘bitching about’.

I notice that Twitter has today been inundated with complaints about the attitude of MPs to the court case, coupled with complaints that MPs should accept the referendum result. Encapsulated in such comments is the further complaint that they have no control over those that are supposed to represent their views.

To those complaining on Twitter I can but say: wait until 11:00 on Monday next, then get yourselves over to DD4UK.com where you will discover that there is a way in which you can force those you elect to take notice of you rather than you having to take notice of them – and the beauty of this system, known as direct democracy, is it works not only at national level but also at local level,