Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Speaker Bercow may have radically changed the rules of the Brexit game
1 view
Skip to first unread message
RH156RH
Mar 20, 2019, 9:11:40 AM3/20/19
to
https://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2019/03/20/speaker-bercow-may-have-radically-changed-the-rules-of-the-brexit-game/
Speaker Bercow may have radically changed the rules of the Brexit game
Posted on March 20, 2019 by Robert Henderson
Recently there has been a sense of resignation in the leave camp, a feeling that we were at the mercy of our treacherous remainer politicians who appeared to hold all the best cards because of their domination of Parliament. Singlehandedly the Speaker has changed the mood .
John Bercow’s ruling (18 March) that May cannot put her deal with the EU to the Commons for a third time if it is “the same or substantially the same” . This has undermined utterly May’s entire strategy which is the democratically contemptible one of trying to force a thoroughly bad deal through by a war of attrition allied to Project Fear.
Even before Bercow spoke the situation was unsettled however much the remainers might have portrayed it as being a clear choice between May’s deal being passed by the Commons or May going off to the EU to ask for an extension (preferably a long one) which would allow the remainers more time to complete their sabotage of Brexit.
Nor, despite the remainers’ shrill, incessant claims, has a “no deal” departure been taken off the table. In fact a “no deal” Brexit is still the default position until and when the 29 March date in the Withdrawal Act is amended.
Consequently, there was a launching pad for greater resistance to the game May has been playing and the problems of dealing with a Remmainer dominated Parliament. All that was needed was something to strike a serious blow at the status quo. Bercow provided that.
Before Bercow stated his position with regard to May’s deal, the Government had no inkling of what he was going to do before he spoke. The very nasty shock he has administered has already born fruit. May has made a request for the EU to sanction both a short extension and a long extension, The EU’s chief negotiator Michel Barnier has replied smartly that she cannot have both. He also made it clear than an extension should not be taken for granted and that May must come to the EU with a firm plan of action to justify any extension of Artic 50. She will find this very difficult to formulate.
The implications of extensions to Article 50
If May does obtain a long extension this at the least would mean during the extension the UK paying even more money than the £39 billion Danegeld May has already offered to the ERU with nothing in return , continuing free movement, being subject to any new EU laws and regulations (including quite probability a transaction tax which would hit the UK hard because so much of our economy is services based) and coming under the jurisdiction of the ECJ.
Those sort of impositions might not only strengthen the resolve of Brexiteers but be too much for many remainers, especially those with leave majorities. Moreover, it is important to understand that though the Commons has authorised May to seek an extension it will need a vote in Parliament before it is adopted as law, presumably by amending the Withdrawal Act.
If an extension is beyond the EU elections in June the UK would have to hold elections for MEPs. That could well result in a phalanx of hard core Brexiteers intent on making as much trouble as possible. Neither the British remainer establishment nor the EU apparatchiks, elected or appointed, would welcome that. Both or the EU alone might conclude that letting the UK leave without a deal was preferable and refuse an extension.
That leaves revoking Article 50 entirely. The ECJ has ruled that the UK can unilaterally revoke Article 50 ) but I doubt whether Parliament would vote for that because individual remainer MPs in leave majority seats would be worried about losing their seats. . (Strictly speaking May could probably do it off her own bat using the Royal Prerogative, but I doubt whether even she would have the brass neck to do that. Moreover, in the new Parliament is the executive power situation and mood I suspect that she would face and probably lose a vote of no confidence if she did so)
On the EU side it would be rash to assume that an extension would be automatically granted. Each of the other 27 EU members have their own national axes to grind and it is possible that one or more might simply say no to along extension.
Why May’s Deal Does Not Mean Leaving the EU.
Anyone who is under the illusion that May’s “deal” is anything other than a a subordinating horror for the UK should read the Spectator column The top 40 horrors lurking in the small print of Theresa May’s Brexit deal and watch this excellent less than 4 minute summary of the content of and the implications of the “deal” by the Bruges Group.
Proroguing Parliament
The suggestion that Parliament could be prorogued and a new Parliamentary session started would hit the buffers of the Fixed Term Parliament Act. This provides for five Parliamentary sessions of 12 months. If the present session was ended by proroguing Parliament that would mean the five year term would be shortened because the current Parliamentary Session would be reduced. As things stand this would mean the end date of the Parliament would not be reached by the end of five Parliamentary sessions.
Short of voting for a General Election now, to get round this problem either the new Parliamentary year would have to be lengthened or the Commons would have to vote to amend the Fixed Term Parliaments Ac to fit these distinctly peculiar circumstances.
If nothing is settled by 29th March
What is required now is as much disorder and confusion as possible amongst our political class to distract them from the draining away of the last ten days before the 29 March.
In the present complex and rapidly reshaping circumstances It is quite conceivable that the UK may come to and pass the 29th March with the withdrawal date intact. That would mean the UK has left the EU. There would be no legal way for either our remainer politicians or the EU to re-establish UK membership simply by passing retrospective legislation or by the making of Treaties. The only way back would be for the UK to re-apply for membership of the EU. From scratch.
Brexiteers should not be unthinkingly optimistic, but the situation is undeniably considerably more favourable to the leave side than it was on 17 March, not least because Bercow’s intervention has swept away much of the obfuscation and outright lying which has tainted the Commons until now.
Of course it may be that there is a good deal of playacting by Bercow, the Government and the EU and come the crunch Bercow my allow another vote on May’s deal, the Commons may vote for the deal and the EU will agree to a long extension, but that scenario looks a great deal less likely today that it did 48 hours ago.
Share this:
Share
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged birthright, EU, Parliament | Leave a comment | Edit
Brexit: an object lesson in elite betrayal
Posted on January 20, 2019 by Robert Henderson
Robert Henderson
On 15 January Theresa May suffered the greatest defeat of any British Prime Minister when she put the draft deal she has struck with the EU to a vote in the House of Commons. The deal was rejected by 432 votes against to 202 votes for, a colossal majority against accepting the deal of 230.
The bald figures are terrible enough but they are even worse than they appear for the government’s “payroll vote” of MPs holding government office is around 140. These would be expected to vote with the Government. Hence, May will have only attracted around 60 backbenchers (who within reason can vote as they like) to support her draft deal.
This gives May and her government a tremendous problem because ever since she came back to Parliament with the draft deal she has been saying it is her way or the highway as she has stubbornly insisted that no other deal is available and that a failure to accept it could mean no Brexit. As the draft deal she has agreed offers Brexit in name only (Brino) and resembles the type of treaty a defeated enemy who had sued for peace might agree to such is the subordination of the UK interests which according to many commentators would leave the UK as a vassal state. The Commons showed what they thought of the goods on offer and chose to reject them in the most spectacular fashion.
The problem is that May is still Prime Minister . The day after suffering the defeat over her deal a vote of No Confidence in the Government was defeated by 325 votes to 306 . This means that she stays as Prime Minister and the threat of an early General Election has receded. Nor can she face another Tory leadership challenge for the better part of a year because she won a vote of No Confidence in her leadership just before Christmas.
The defeat of May’s deal is encouraging for Brexiteers inasmuch as the overwhelming result should have greatly lessened any thoughts May had of coming back with a few insignificant cosmetic changes made to the deal nearer the 29th March leaving date. However, that is still a possibility and there are many other threats to thwart a true Brexit . If there is a serious breakdown of party discipline there is nothing to stop remainer MPs doing anything they want because the house of Commons consists of a substantial majority of remainers.
There is one bright light amongst this gloom for Brexiteers, namely the fact that the date for the UK’s leaving is fixed in an Acct of Parliament .
Section 20 of the European Union (Withdrawal ) Act 2018 states ‘“exit day” means 29 March 2019 at 11.00 p.m.’
To change the date of the UK leaving the EU requires either an amendment to or repeal of the Act.
While the Brexit leaving date remains unchanged it does not matter what else happens because it places a legal obligation on the UK to leave. Consequently, a second referendum cannot be held, an extension of Article 50 cannot be sought by the UK or granted by the EU and Article 50 cannot be revoked. In addition remainers, however aided and abetted by a remainer Speaker of the Commons, cannot ultimately stop the UK leaving the EU on 29 March.
However, the House of Commons is remainer dominated (around 6o%) and could vote to amend or repeal the leaving date, but there are serious obstacles to that happening.
To begin with it would nakedly expose their anti-democratic partisanship. Ever since the referendum most remainers have constantly bleated the refrain that they honour the result whilst making it perfectly clear that they want to sabotage Brexit. If they alter the leaving date that pretence would be unsupportable because once the date was altered or removed completely from the Act the remainers would be forced to commit themselves to going down one of these paths:
Extend the two year Article 50 negotiating period, perhaps indefinitely.
Revoke Article 50
Announce that the UK is remaining in the EU.
4, Legislate for another referendum on Brexit.
There is also be the possibility of a snap General Election if no one could command a majority in the Commons.
Having their true feelings and intentions towards Brexit exposed will be more than embarrassing for many MPs because there are many constituencies – and especially ones filled by Labour MPs – which voted heavily to leave the EU while their MP voted to remain and has consistently opposed Brexit by fair means or foul. Consequently, leave voters might well punish remainer MPs in leave constituencies.
Brexit did not have to be thought hideously complicated.
Much has been made of the complexity of the Brexit. This claimed complexity is largely down to having remainer PM and a remainer dominated cabinet which looked for terrors where there were none. At best their heart isn’t in Brexit and at worst they are deliberately trying to sabotage Brexit.
If the process pf leaving the EU had been conducted by a leaver PM and a leaver dominated Cabinet most of the complexity would have dissolved. There would still have been a potential problem with remainer dominated Commons (and Lords) but with a government firmly committed to Brexit it is doubtful that remainers in Parliament would have been so blatant in their attempts to overthrow Brexit.
With a resolute leaver as PM backed by a leaver dominated cabinet the mere fact of their existence would have changed the language and progress of the negotiations between the UK and the EU.
Trading on World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules
Leaving without a deal to trade under WTO rules is a real possibility because of both the fast approaching leave date and the inability of the House of Commons to come up with any plan which can command a majority. Moreover, significant numbers of leave MPs have embraced the idea as being the best route out of the EU for of the UK .
There are two reasons for embracing the idea of leaving to trade on WTO terms. The first is that it simplifies matters because it is ready made system and allows business to plan . The second is that it prevents, at least in the short to medium term, remainder politicians trying to sabotage Brexit after the UK has formally left the EU. Nor of course does WTO membership mean that future bilateral trade deals cannot be struck.
The Deep State
The Deep State is often portrayed as a conspiracy. In fact it is better thought of as a blind sociological event. There is no group of conscious conspirators, simply people being groomed to have the same opinions or at least saying they do.
What has happened in the UK (and the rest for the West to varying degrees) is the success of the long march through the institutions. That is what ultimately has given the UK an elite (politicians, mediafolk, teachers etc) who are overwhelmingly politically correct internationalists and its those people who are at the forefront of the attempts to sabotage Brexit.
How did it it come about? A German student leader of the 1960s Rudi Dutschke put forward the idea whereby societies were subverted from within by those of an internationalist bent who would patiently work to gain positions of power and influence. Eventually there would be sufficient of such people to change the policies of Western societies from national to internationalist ones. That point was reached in the UK at least 50 years ago and the politically correct stranglehold on our society is now in full flower.
The capture of Western societies by internationalists has allowed them to permit and even overtly encourage mass immigration of people from different cultures , denigrate their own societies, traduce the West and its native populations generally and introduce gradually the pernicious totalitarian creed of political correctness which has “anti-racism” (in reality anti-white racism) at its heart. The last brick in the politically correct building is the increasingly draconian treatment of anyone who refused to toe the politically correct line , treatment which is increasingly including the use of the criminal law and imprisonment.
That is why Western politics until recently has been so ideologically monotone. Brexit was a revolt against that mentality.
The bad faith of the remainers
The vast majority of MPs have overtly or tacitly supported the idea of the referendum and its result by promising in election manifestos, in Parliament and through their passage by large majorities of the legislation needed to both set up the referendum and make provision for the
By doing so MPs forfeited their right to do anything other honour the result of the referendum. That applies just as much to remainer MPs as leave MPs because the leaver MPs were bound by both the democratic choice made by the Commons and the democratic choice made by the electorate.
Sadly, the behaviour of the most committed remainers with power and influence (including many MPs and peers in the house of Lords) has shattered utterly the idea that the UK is a fully functioning democracy. Rather, it is an elective oligarchy whereby the electorate are offered an opportunity every few years to choose between competing parts of the elite, an elite in the UK whose general political ideas are largely shared by the various competing parts of that elite, ideas which go against the interests and wishes of most of the electorate.
Noe of this should be a surprise. The sad truth is that the central political question in any society is this, how far will the masses be able to control the naturally abusive tendencies of the elite.
Speaker Bercow may have radically changed the rules of the Brexit game
Posted on March 20, 2019 by Robert Henderson
Recently there has been a sense of resignation in the leave camp, a feeling that we were at the mercy of our treacherous remainer politicians who appeared to hold all the best cards because of their domination of Parliament. Singlehandedly the Speaker has changed the mood .
John Bercow’s ruling (18 March) that May cannot put her deal with the EU to the Commons for a third time if it is “the same or substantially the same” . This has undermined utterly May’s entire strategy which is the democratically contemptible one of trying to force a thoroughly bad deal through by a war of attrition allied to Project Fear.
Even before Bercow spoke the situation was unsettled however much the remainers might have portrayed it as being a clear choice between May’s deal being passed by the Commons or May going off to the EU to ask for an extension (preferably a long one) which would allow the remainers more time to complete their sabotage of Brexit.
Nor, despite the remainers’ shrill, incessant claims, has a “no deal” departure been taken off the table. In fact a “no deal” Brexit is still the default position until and when the 29 March date in the Withdrawal Act is amended.
Consequently, there was a launching pad for greater resistance to the game May has been playing and the problems of dealing with a Remmainer dominated Parliament. All that was needed was something to strike a serious blow at the status quo. Bercow provided that.
Before Bercow stated his position with regard to May’s deal, the Government had no inkling of what he was going to do before he spoke. The very nasty shock he has administered has already born fruit. May has made a request for the EU to sanction both a short extension and a long extension, The EU’s chief negotiator Michel Barnier has replied smartly that she cannot have both. He also made it clear than an extension should not be taken for granted and that May must come to the EU with a firm plan of action to justify any extension of Artic 50. She will find this very difficult to formulate.
The implications of extensions to Article 50
If May does obtain a long extension this at the least would mean during the extension the UK paying even more money than the £39 billion Danegeld May has already offered to the ERU with nothing in return , continuing free movement, being subject to any new EU laws and regulations (including quite probability a transaction tax which would hit the UK hard because so much of our economy is services based) and coming under the jurisdiction of the ECJ.
Those sort of impositions might not only strengthen the resolve of Brexiteers but be too much for many remainers, especially those with leave majorities. Moreover, it is important to understand that though the Commons has authorised May to seek an extension it will need a vote in Parliament before it is adopted as law, presumably by amending the Withdrawal Act.
If an extension is beyond the EU elections in June the UK would have to hold elections for MEPs. That could well result in a phalanx of hard core Brexiteers intent on making as much trouble as possible. Neither the British remainer establishment nor the EU apparatchiks, elected or appointed, would welcome that. Both or the EU alone might conclude that letting the UK leave without a deal was preferable and refuse an extension.
That leaves revoking Article 50 entirely. The ECJ has ruled that the UK can unilaterally revoke Article 50 ) but I doubt whether Parliament would vote for that because individual remainer MPs in leave majority seats would be worried about losing their seats. . (Strictly speaking May could probably do it off her own bat using the Royal Prerogative, but I doubt whether even she would have the brass neck to do that. Moreover, in the new Parliament is the executive power situation and mood I suspect that she would face and probably lose a vote of no confidence if she did so)
On the EU side it would be rash to assume that an extension would be automatically granted. Each of the other 27 EU members have their own national axes to grind and it is possible that one or more might simply say no to along extension.
Why May’s Deal Does Not Mean Leaving the EU.
Anyone who is under the illusion that May’s “deal” is anything other than a a subordinating horror for the UK should read the Spectator column The top 40 horrors lurking in the small print of Theresa May’s Brexit deal and watch this excellent less than 4 minute summary of the content of and the implications of the “deal” by the Bruges Group.
Proroguing Parliament
The suggestion that Parliament could be prorogued and a new Parliamentary session started would hit the buffers of the Fixed Term Parliament Act. This provides for five Parliamentary sessions of 12 months. If the present session was ended by proroguing Parliament that would mean the five year term would be shortened because the current Parliamentary Session would be reduced. As things stand this would mean the end date of the Parliament would not be reached by the end of five Parliamentary sessions.
Short of voting for a General Election now, to get round this problem either the new Parliamentary year would have to be lengthened or the Commons would have to vote to amend the Fixed Term Parliaments Ac to fit these distinctly peculiar circumstances.
If nothing is settled by 29th March
What is required now is as much disorder and confusion as possible amongst our political class to distract them from the draining away of the last ten days before the 29 March.
In the present complex and rapidly reshaping circumstances It is quite conceivable that the UK may come to and pass the 29th March with the withdrawal date intact. That would mean the UK has left the EU. There would be no legal way for either our remainer politicians or the EU to re-establish UK membership simply by passing retrospective legislation or by the making of Treaties. The only way back would be for the UK to re-apply for membership of the EU. From scratch.
Brexiteers should not be unthinkingly optimistic, but the situation is undeniably considerably more favourable to the leave side than it was on 17 March, not least because Bercow’s intervention has swept away much of the obfuscation and outright lying which has tainted the Commons until now.
Of course it may be that there is a good deal of playacting by Bercow, the Government and the EU and come the crunch Bercow my allow another vote on May’s deal, the Commons may vote for the deal and the EU will agree to a long extension, but that scenario looks a great deal less likely today that it did 48 hours ago.
Share this:
Share
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged birthright, EU, Parliament | Leave a comment | Edit
Brexit: an object lesson in elite betrayal
Posted on January 20, 2019 by Robert Henderson
Robert Henderson
On 15 January Theresa May suffered the greatest defeat of any British Prime Minister when she put the draft deal she has struck with the EU to a vote in the House of Commons. The deal was rejected by 432 votes against to 202 votes for, a colossal majority against accepting the deal of 230.
The bald figures are terrible enough but they are even worse than they appear for the government’s “payroll vote” of MPs holding government office is around 140. These would be expected to vote with the Government. Hence, May will have only attracted around 60 backbenchers (who within reason can vote as they like) to support her draft deal.
This gives May and her government a tremendous problem because ever since she came back to Parliament with the draft deal she has been saying it is her way or the highway as she has stubbornly insisted that no other deal is available and that a failure to accept it could mean no Brexit. As the draft deal she has agreed offers Brexit in name only (Brino) and resembles the type of treaty a defeated enemy who had sued for peace might agree to such is the subordination of the UK interests which according to many commentators would leave the UK as a vassal state. The Commons showed what they thought of the goods on offer and chose to reject them in the most spectacular fashion.
The problem is that May is still Prime Minister . The day after suffering the defeat over her deal a vote of No Confidence in the Government was defeated by 325 votes to 306 . This means that she stays as Prime Minister and the threat of an early General Election has receded. Nor can she face another Tory leadership challenge for the better part of a year because she won a vote of No Confidence in her leadership just before Christmas.
The defeat of May’s deal is encouraging for Brexiteers inasmuch as the overwhelming result should have greatly lessened any thoughts May had of coming back with a few insignificant cosmetic changes made to the deal nearer the 29th March leaving date. However, that is still a possibility and there are many other threats to thwart a true Brexit . If there is a serious breakdown of party discipline there is nothing to stop remainer MPs doing anything they want because the house of Commons consists of a substantial majority of remainers.
There is one bright light amongst this gloom for Brexiteers, namely the fact that the date for the UK’s leaving is fixed in an Acct of Parliament .
Section 20 of the European Union (Withdrawal ) Act 2018 states ‘“exit day” means 29 March 2019 at 11.00 p.m.’
To change the date of the UK leaving the EU requires either an amendment to or repeal of the Act.
While the Brexit leaving date remains unchanged it does not matter what else happens because it places a legal obligation on the UK to leave. Consequently, a second referendum cannot be held, an extension of Article 50 cannot be sought by the UK or granted by the EU and Article 50 cannot be revoked. In addition remainers, however aided and abetted by a remainer Speaker of the Commons, cannot ultimately stop the UK leaving the EU on 29 March.
However, the House of Commons is remainer dominated (around 6o%) and could vote to amend or repeal the leaving date, but there are serious obstacles to that happening.
To begin with it would nakedly expose their anti-democratic partisanship. Ever since the referendum most remainers have constantly bleated the refrain that they honour the result whilst making it perfectly clear that they want to sabotage Brexit. If they alter the leaving date that pretence would be unsupportable because once the date was altered or removed completely from the Act the remainers would be forced to commit themselves to going down one of these paths:
Extend the two year Article 50 negotiating period, perhaps indefinitely.
Revoke Article 50
Announce that the UK is remaining in the EU.
4, Legislate for another referendum on Brexit.
There is also be the possibility of a snap General Election if no one could command a majority in the Commons.
Having their true feelings and intentions towards Brexit exposed will be more than embarrassing for many MPs because there are many constituencies – and especially ones filled by Labour MPs – which voted heavily to leave the EU while their MP voted to remain and has consistently opposed Brexit by fair means or foul. Consequently, leave voters might well punish remainer MPs in leave constituencies.
Brexit did not have to be thought hideously complicated.
Much has been made of the complexity of the Brexit. This claimed complexity is largely down to having remainer PM and a remainer dominated cabinet which looked for terrors where there were none. At best their heart isn’t in Brexit and at worst they are deliberately trying to sabotage Brexit.
If the process pf leaving the EU had been conducted by a leaver PM and a leaver dominated Cabinet most of the complexity would have dissolved. There would still have been a potential problem with remainer dominated Commons (and Lords) but with a government firmly committed to Brexit it is doubtful that remainers in Parliament would have been so blatant in their attempts to overthrow Brexit.
With a resolute leaver as PM backed by a leaver dominated cabinet the mere fact of their existence would have changed the language and progress of the negotiations between the UK and the EU.
Trading on World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules
Leaving without a deal to trade under WTO rules is a real possibility because of both the fast approaching leave date and the inability of the House of Commons to come up with any plan which can command a majority. Moreover, significant numbers of leave MPs have embraced the idea as being the best route out of the EU for of the UK .
There are two reasons for embracing the idea of leaving to trade on WTO terms. The first is that it simplifies matters because it is ready made system and allows business to plan . The second is that it prevents, at least in the short to medium term, remainder politicians trying to sabotage Brexit after the UK has formally left the EU. Nor of course does WTO membership mean that future bilateral trade deals cannot be struck.
The Deep State
The Deep State is often portrayed as a conspiracy. In fact it is better thought of as a blind sociological event. There is no group of conscious conspirators, simply people being groomed to have the same opinions or at least saying they do.
What has happened in the UK (and the rest for the West to varying degrees) is the success of the long march through the institutions. That is what ultimately has given the UK an elite (politicians, mediafolk, teachers etc) who are overwhelmingly politically correct internationalists and its those people who are at the forefront of the attempts to sabotage Brexit.
How did it it come about? A German student leader of the 1960s Rudi Dutschke put forward the idea whereby societies were subverted from within by those of an internationalist bent who would patiently work to gain positions of power and influence. Eventually there would be sufficient of such people to change the policies of Western societies from national to internationalist ones. That point was reached in the UK at least 50 years ago and the politically correct stranglehold on our society is now in full flower.
The capture of Western societies by internationalists has allowed them to permit and even overtly encourage mass immigration of people from different cultures , denigrate their own societies, traduce the West and its native populations generally and introduce gradually the pernicious totalitarian creed of political correctness which has “anti-racism” (in reality anti-white racism) at its heart. The last brick in the politically correct building is the increasingly draconian treatment of anyone who refused to toe the politically correct line , treatment which is increasingly including the use of the criminal law and imprisonment.
That is why Western politics until recently has been so ideologically monotone. Brexit was a revolt against that mentality.
The bad faith of the remainers
The vast majority of MPs have overtly or tacitly supported the idea of the referendum and its result by promising in election manifestos, in Parliament and through their passage by large majorities of the legislation needed to both set up the referendum and make provision for the
By doing so MPs forfeited their right to do anything other honour the result of the referendum. That applies just as much to remainer MPs as leave MPs because the leaver MPs were bound by both the democratic choice made by the Commons and the democratic choice made by the electorate.
Sadly, the behaviour of the most committed remainers with power and influence (including many MPs and peers in the house of Lords) has shattered utterly the idea that the UK is a fully functioning democracy. Rather, it is an elective oligarchy whereby the electorate are offered an opportunity every few years to choose between competing parts of the elite, an elite in the UK whose general political ideas are largely shared by the various competing parts of that elite, ideas which go against the interests and wishes of most of the electorate.
Noe of this should be a surprise. The sad truth is that the central political question in any society is this, how far will the masses be able to control the naturally abusive tendencies of the elite.
0 new messages