Tag Archives: Direct Democracy

What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander – unfortunately

According to the Cambridge Dictionary one definition of this saying is that it is said: to emphasize that if one person is allowed to do something or to behave in a particular way, then another person must be allowed to do that thing or behave in that way, too.

Much is made of a ‘supposed’ statement by Winston Churchill: We are with Europe but not of it; we are linked but not compromised. We are associated but not absorbed. If Britain must choose between Europe and the open sea, she must always choose the open sea.

The word ‘supposed’ is used as it is inferred, by those with a fondness to quote it, that those words are an extract from a speech he gave at one time or another.

According to this blog the quotation mentioned in paragraph two of this article did not – and could not – have happened. Therefore the continued use of the purported phrase mentioned in paragraph two is a classic example of a phrase being used time and time again and on thus are articles written –  even though the authors of such articles are clueless of the crime they commit –  when a little effort shows that said authors have not carried out the necessary research to authenticate that which they assert.

,The preceding paragraph does not stop David Hannay, writing this article, about May’s decision not to attend the 60th celebrations of the founding of the European Union, from which I quote: Do we really believe that the decision taken 60 years ago by our closest neighbours, allies and partners to put behind them definitively the internecine warfare which had led to two world wars, on the explicit advice of Winston Churchill in his famous Zurich speech of 1946, is not an event which we should be celebrating too?

Hannay is guilty, as are so many – especially among our Ukip fraternity – of assuming  a ‘misquote’ as fact; of which this is the actual text. Nowhere in that speech did Churchill state that the United Kingdom must be part of his vision – one only has to read his last sentence: Great Britain, the British Commonwealth of Nations, mighty America, and I trust Soviet Russia – for then indeed all would be well – must be the friends and sponsors of the new Europe and must champion its right to live and shine.

Referring back to paragraph two of this article -and in particular to the last sentence of what is a misquote – from this article can be found the source of the second sentence; again from which I quote: It appeared in Churchill’s “The United States of Europe,” published in The Saturday Evening Post in America and John Bull in England on 15 February 1930. On 29 May 1938, just before Munich put an end to such happy musings, it was republished in The News of the World as, “Why Not ‘The United States of Europe’?” It appears in book form only in The Collected Essays of Sir Winston Churchill, Volume II “Churchill and Politics,” London: Library of Imperial History 1976, pp. 176-86.

Is it not time that Churchills’s words are not misquoted; ie, parts of separate speeches combined to present a ‘false statement’?

An argument may well be presented that Hannay is correct in assuming that May did not wish to attend the EU’s 60th celebrations because:she did not want to face the criticism from her own benches for attending a celebratory gathering of an organisation which many of them sincerely hate and would be happy to see broken up,

The problem with that statement is that Hannay – along with so many others – fails to recognise why the European Union is unnecessary in the first place. Neither Hannay, – nor unfortunately May – recognise that the European Union is but a ‘middle-man’ where the setting of standards are concerned. As I intimated in this article: who needs a middle man with its associated, additional, costs, not that May – or any other politician – understands that? Mind you, it will be noted that in the article linked to in this paragraph one politician did realise this fact; unfortunately he appears to have undergone a Damascene conversion

Is it not time, where Brexit is concerned, politicians and the media told us the truth; is it not time, on other and all matters affecting our nation, that politicians told us the truth; is it not time that we had politicians who remembered why they we elected and forgot heir political party loyalty?

Of course to all our woes and dissatisfaction with our political class and media, there is an alternative.





When a foreign national seeks citizenship/naturalisaton of their host nation, who should make that decision – those of the community in which the applicant lives; or, as in the United Kingdom, a bureaucratic, box-ticking government department?

Recently, in Switzerland, a case concerning a woman who had lived in Switzerland since she was eight, speaks fluent Swiss German, has three children with Swiss passports, has no criminal record, doesn’t claim welfare and is politically active was rejected. On the face of it, one would have thought she would be a ‘shoo-in’ for a Swiss passport. How wrong you are..

Read the article and you will find the reasons why the outcome of her application was rejected. You will also be able to read the comments to the article, among which is mine.

As I wrote, my view is that only those to whom ‘ownership’ of a nation is a ‘given’ should be able to confer citizenship and the benefits that such brings.

Should that not be the case in our nation, the United Kingdom?

Is there not a case made, in this instance, for ‘people power’ – and should not ‘people power’ be able to decide any matter which affects that people’s nation?

What do my readers think?

Home Truths – a new series

Having been for some time a disciple of Thomas Sowell, an American economist, turned social theorist, political philosopher, and author; I thought I might start a new daily series, using his ‘pithy’ remarks (some of which may end up being paraphrased to make them pertinent to this country.

#! – A question for politicians:

Since this is an era when many of you are concerned about ‘fairness’ and ‘social justice,’ what is your ‘fair share’ of what someone else has worked for?

While politicians are permitted to remain within the ‘bubble’ they have created for themselves, politics then remains no more than a job-creation scheme for their fellow men/women, one over which we, the electorate, have no control whatsoever. As taxpayers neither do we or can we, under representative democracy, control the purse strings of what amounts to political largesse, Is it not we taxpayers who continue to fill said purse – under duress if we do not?

Is it not time we taxpayers said enough is enough; and adopted one of the aims proposed by @DD4UK, namely:

4. No treaty, law or government decision can take effect without the consent of the people; and none can continue to have effect once the consent of the people is withdrawn by majority vote.

5. No tax, levy, expenditure of public money nor borrowing be permitted without the express consent of the people by majority vote.

Back in the mid-70s Denis Healey famously said that he would: squeeze property speculators until the pips squeak; and then in 2008 Darling had another go – not that that ploy is confined to socialist governments!

For too long taxpayers have been considered by politicians as a ‘milch cow’ ( a source of easily acquired gain). Well, it is about time politicians were told to find some ‘udders’ to squeeze – or else learn to ‘live within their means’, whilst bearing in mind that it is we, the taxpayer, who is their ‘means’.

Just saying………….


The Political Mindset

Even though his political affiliation/thinking is at the opposite spectrum to mine, I have (until now) always ‘had time’ for Frank Field (Labour – Birkenhead).

In a  recent interview he gave to Sky News on the subject of Parliamentary Democracy viz-a-viz Brexit, he said:

When we decide to have a referendum, we give back to the people that sovereignty – they decide the issue………… (emphasis mine)

So presumably, under representative democracy, the people have no sovereignty unless the political elite allow them so to have for the fifteen hours that polling booths are open. This point was noted by Jean-Jacques Rousseau (28 June 1712 – 2 July 1778) who is reported to have said: The English think they are free. They are free only during the election of members of parliament.

There have been many forms of serfdom during centuries past and it does seem that one form has persisted.

It is about time we, the people. informed those that have managed to invert the servant/master  relationship in their favour that enough is enough and that we intend reverting to the natural order encapsulated in the meaning of democracy.


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,


It is with great pleasure I am now able to advise that the new website, Direct Democracy for the United Kingdom (dd4uk.com), which is a Public Consultation on the way forward to enact direct democracy in the United Kingdom, will be published at 11:00 on the morning of Monday 7th November 2016.

Please note that at the top of the home page is an advisory article on how you can gain the best use of  this forum; and it is strongly advised that this is read prior to proceeding. Likewise it is also suggested, besides reading  the home page, you also read ‘Intro’ (also at the top of the home page).

It is important that readers/contributors, who believe in direct democracy and the advancement of same,  realize this is their opportunity to shape the future governance  of their nation.  To my knowledge this is the first time, in the United Kingdom, that the people have had the opportunity to decide upon a system of democracy under which they wish to live and which will place their future and that of their nation in their hands rather than the hands of an elected few.

Finally, I must acknowledge the work of Ian Parker-Joseph who has done all the ‘techie bits’; and  with whom you may come into contact at some time during your usage of this forum.


Looking after one’s own

Yesterday in the House of Commons MPs voted 203 to 7 to appoint Keith Vaz to the Justice Select Committee, despite an objection by Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire – Con). The Hansard record of the resulting debate and a list of MPs who voted can be found here.

According to this source the Conservative Party whipped their MPs to vote for Keith Vaz. During the debate it was ruled that the past ‘misdemeanours’ of this MP were ‘off-limits’ where the debate was concerned. For those readers of short memory, said misdemeanours were listed here by the same source.

In view of the closing remarks by Andrew Bridgen:

If the right hon. Member for Leicester East thought himself only last month not fit to be a member of the Home Affairs Committee, and given that the matters relating his resignation are, as I have explained, unresolved, what makes him think that he is a fit and proper person to be a member of the Justice Committee this month?

one can but ask the same question.

One of the requirements of direct democracy is that Prime Ministers are elected and that they appoint their own ministers, the latter being subject to the approval of Parliament. As Parliament appears to have ‘lost their marbles’ in that they seem more content in preserving the stature one of their own, bearing in mind what has been ‘questionable behaviour, perhaps the ability of Parliament to take decisions needs to be curtailed further.

When the new Direct Democracy website ‘goes public’, this article will be copied there for further comment and voting on whether the basic requirements for direct democracy do indeed need strengthening.


Direct Democracy Website

In order to keep followers of this website (and development of the new promised website) who are interested in the promotion of direct democracy, informed; please be aware ‘the build’ of the new website is progressing with all possible speed.

As the intention of this new website is to provide the progression of direct democracy; and for it to be ‘people led’, it will contain, what I believe to be, some innovative features that will allow the project to be ‘people led’; which, after all, was the original intention – before said original intention got ‘high-jacked’.

My ‘techie’, IPJ, is working flat out on the project (at my expense, I hasten to add), however we are still a week (or two – tops) from ‘going live’. The remaining time is being spent checking that the various ‘facilities’ – aka the ‘bells and whistles’ – do in fact do that which they are supposed to do (famous last words where ‘testing’ is concerned).

So ‘stay tuned’ please,  as all this work is for your benefit thus allowing you to regain control of that which should, rightfully, be yours; namely your lives and that of your nation.

Asleep at t’wheel – definitely not!

Readers may think that I have been asleep at t’wheel in view of the fact it is now nine days since an article appeared on this blog.

I shall be writing about home care agencies and the appalling standard of care which one agency has been providing to a 102 year-old over whom I have power of attorney. Presently I am awaiting a response from her Member of Parliament, namely he of the Witney constituency. Also, as that Member of Parliament does not appear willing to discuss with me the matter of social care in general, even though the two matters are inter-linked, I shall also be writing, in due course, to my Member of Parliament, he of the Easington constituency.

On the subject of democracy I have a trip, taking place at the beginning of September, to Switzerland during which I have meetings arranged with Swiss parliamentarians. Also, on 1st October, I have a meeting scheduled to discuss The Harrogate Agenda. Needless to say I shall be reporting on both. For those on Twitter, they may wish to take note that I shall be using that form of media during my time there, coupled with an article or two.

It is acknowledged that I have also  been somewhat quiet on the subject of Brexit; a matter which will be rectified on my return from Switzerland.

Currently I manage a small portfolio of rental properties which are in the process of being sold, the tenants having been served Section 21 notices to vacate; and as will hopefully be understood, this is taking up a great deal of my time.

In the meantime I will attempt to produce articles, albeit they may be a tad infrequent; and I trust readers will bear with me.