Brexit and the Value of Voting

I was once one of those folks who would berate anyone who didn’t vote.

“What’s wrong with you?” I’d say.

“How can you complain if you don’t vote? You don’t have a say if you don’t vote!”

Well. Times change.

For an individual voter the actual physical and financial value of voting is, and always has been, just about as near nil as you could get. 

Even at the parish council level, where the turnout is often just a couple of hundred voters, the number of elections where a single vote has changed the outcome is vanishingly small.

For an individual, voting as a process is valueless. The best you will ever get is a warm glow of satisfaction that you have done your democratic duty. But your one vote in many millions is all but irrelevant.

“But… If people don’t vote then democracy fails!” I hear you say. Which is true.

But democracy can sometimes fail (or be killed) even when people actually do vote. The “wrong” result can be either ignored or overturned by unscrupulous means.

A classic example is the current shambles surrounding the 2016 Brexit referendum vote where a clear (though highly unexpected) vote to leave the EU occurred. To date it has been systematically undermined, stone-walled and delayed.

So what happens when you vote for a particular outcome, find yourself on the winning side and then  the result is reneged on?

The only gain from your voting, that warm glow of democratic participation, evaporates. 

To be replaced by the feeling of being taken for a sucker.

There are many millions of people across the UK today who feel exactly that.

The losing side in the 2016 referendum have decided that the “wrong” answer should be cancelled.

The Liberal Democrats (what a parody of a name!) state that the 2016 referendum result should be ignored. Even though one former LibDem leader described it as a "Once in a Generation Vote" (Here) and another eulogised over how the result should be respected at all costs (Here) 

To be fair at the time they made these speeches they both thought remain would win. 

Others somewhat more squeamish about being so clearly identified as being anti-democratic, have another tactic.

  

They want what is laughably called a "Confirmatory" referendum.

If this enforced second referendum were to get successfully flushed through this cesspit of a parliament then I would hope Johnson and others would call for it to be boycotted.

But if the consensus among the Leave camp is to vote, I will grudgingly and reluctantly vote in what I would regard as little better than Hitlers enforced snap 1934 referendum.

Even so, I suspect that many people who voted leave in the 2016 referendum will not bother again.

Once bitten, twice shy. 

The turnout will fall and with it (I am sure this is the game plan) remain will sneak a win. Brexit will be cancelled.

Democracy in the UK will be not only dead but the corpse will be reeking with the stench of privilege and entitlement.

Voting is above all else an altruistic act. It is selfless and without tangible reward. It is something that those seeking office should be cherish and promote. Not cynically exploit.

If this Hitler style second referendum is forced through and then used to cancel Brexit then personally, I’ll be done with this cadaver of UK democracy.

I will never vote again.

Parish Councils are Dying. So What?

This is the last in a series I’ve posted on how a new party could gain and maintain power at the lowest level of UK democracy. That is at the Parish Council/ Town Council level. 

A committed party could do this literally in a few months. In many cases without even standing for election. (See this post)

But then you have got to ask: Why would any party want to do this?

Why bother?

It would involve a great deal of effort. For what gain?

Parish/Town councils all over the country are dying. So what would be the point in gaining power in failing councils?

If a party placed candidates to fill the rows of empty Councillor seats and then walked away without providing further support then little would be achieved. In fact in all likelihood it would be an utter and complete waste of time.

Nothing would change. There may be a brief blip on the heart monitor for these councils but they will not be resuscitated. The death spiral will continue.

So how can local councillors make headway against the political apathy that engulfs their locality? 

The only way out of this is to target issues affecting the locality and to do this vocally. Get your councillors to make a lot of noise about local issues. Let people know you're party is standing up for them. Especially on issues they are concerned about. 

Yes. I know. 

That's stating the bleeding obvious.

But I’d bet that most issues affecting one Parish Council are almost identical to those affecting its neighbour or even a similar sized Parish council 300 miles away. 

Few problems at the Parish Council level will be unique.

The issues struggled with by Council A may well have been solved by Council B. Often many years before.

But nobody knows. Like the Parish Councils themselves, all the little victories are anonymous. Re-inventing the wheel is the norm, while leveraging progress made elsewhere is rare.

I mooted an idea that each councillor could have the support of a number of lay-supporters and even other non-local councillors. (Here)

Now imagine a forward looking party that links all these motivated and engaged individuals into a forum. A forum where problems can be posted specifically to find out if similar problems have been solved elsewhere.

Instead of one councillor and 2 or 3 lay-supporters grappling with a problem suddenly you have a central army of 100’s of people. 

An army ready to address a single Councillor's otherwise intractable problems and find out how they have already been fixed elsewhere.

In essence you use your small national political party as a force multiplier for your otherwise isolated and under-informed Parish Councillor. 

Couple that with courses for councillors in using social media, film editing and generally making a lot of fuss and you have a seriously effective and popular Parish Council.

Then you have a route forward. You will gain popularity and support from the community. You have a strong political base to build on.

And its all stamped with the initials of your party.

Realistically no new party is going to miraculously get an opportunity to break into the higher levels of UK politic unless it builds a solid political base first.

I firmly believe Parish/Town councils offer that opportunity.

I hope you agree.


Heres the full set of posts on this topic:

The Social Democratic Party - Where Now?

The SDP and the Brexit Party

Local Politics and the Low Hanging Fruit

Arming the Parish Councillors

Parish Councillors: Party Affiliated or Independent?

Parish Councils are Dying. So What? (this post)

Arming the Parish Councillors

In my last post ( HERE ) I hope I proved that any political party with the drive to improve the failing bottom tier of UK local government could gain a significant representation in Parish/Town councils across the country without really trying. 

In most cases their candidates would not even have to go though the process of being elected. (Yes. Things are that bad!)

But what happens then?

If a party wanted their councillors to do more than simply “get by” they would need to arm their councillors with some form of structured support. Support that is sadly lacking today. Irrespective of what party (or none) you are in.

Yet people join political partys to make a difference. So I think it would be reasonable to assume that the average party member is pre-disposed to helping out. 

While many (the majority - in any party) would not wish to become actively involved to the extent of (say) actually being a Parish Councillor, they may well be willing to provide support to those that are.

Just as MPs have "staffers" running their office, maybe there should be mini "staffers" for Parish Councillors. People providing a couple of hours a week to letter-write/research and read through reports. 

This would significantly reduce the Parish Councillors work load. More importantly it would give the Councillor a base of support to whom they can turn to for ideas, advice or simply a chat.

This support would itself make the prospect of becoming a councillor less daunting and increase supply of candidates.

After a while as the lay-supporters also gain experience they may themselves feel more confident and put themselves forward as councillors.

However, this would entail considerable commitment and organisation from any party that tried to implement it. If the party in question sees only Parliamentary success as important then this is a waste of time.

Sadly I don't think there is ANY political party around today that has either the will-power or the inclination to rescue this vital bottom tier of UK government. 

Everyone is focused on the top of the tree while the bottom rots away.

Next: It's Parish Councils and political branding. Also whether a party ticket can sometimes be a hindrance rather than a help.

Heres the full set of posts on this topic:

The Social Democratic Party - Where Now?

The SDP and the Brexit Party

Local Politics and the Low Hanging Fruit

Arming the Parish Councillors (this)

Parish Councillors: Party Aligned? or Independent?

Parish Councils are Dying: So What?

The Social Democratic Party - Where Now?

In the recent Peterborough Parliamentary by-election there was a candidate whose experience and expertise placed him head and shoulders above the rest.

That candidate was Patrick O’Flynn of the SDP. Here he is on YouTube sticking it to the pompous Brussels elite in the EU Parliament when he was an MEP.

Impressive eh?

But Patrick didn’t win in Peterborough. In fact he lost his deposit.

Meanwhile in an election almost certainly sullied by voting fraud, the Brexit Party candidate, coming from nowhere also lost when the seat was stolen from him.

Arguably if the election had been fair and free from cheating, the Brexit Party candidate would have won and we would have our first Brexit Party MP.

But this is not about the Brexit Party.

This is about the SDP or Social Democratic Party to give it its full name.

I expect most folk reading this already know about the history of this party but here’s a two point resume. Skip it if you know this already.

• The SDP changed British Politics forever back in the 1980’s. Then it went through a near death experience. The party staggered along for years with a handful of members. Recently it has gone through a rapid expansion as the Brexit betrayal by both the Tories and Labour came to the fore. 

• The implosion of UKIP along with disillusionment with the anti-Brexit bias of both Conservative and Labour elites gave the SDP a ready supply of new members. I understand the membership now currently stands around 10,000. Which is a hell of a leap forward!

So why, with such an excellent candidate as Patrick O’Flynn, did the SDP do so badly in this by-election?

I believe the answer to that is simple. It is anonymity.

While Patrick (and others) have done stirling work on the MSM and social media to promote the party, it still  has no edge. No clear identity to the public.

Compare the SDP to the pompous odious identity of the Green Party. While nobody really knows the crack-pot policies the Greens expound people still know “who” they are.

The Green Party has achieved this because they have for years successfully ridden of the backs of drama laden romantic attention seekers who have courted publicity at every stage.

These people played the victim (or the victim proxy) even when they were actually the intimidators, going around ruining peoples lives, jobs and (ironically on many occasions) the environment itself with their antics.

But the Green Party shamelessly hooked up with these characters, rode the wave and now has one MP and many councillors.

The SDP  cannot do what the Green party has done. After-all the SDP is anything but an extremist party.

There is no publicity hungry enterprise that goes out of its way to promote social cohesion that the SDP can piggy-back off.

There is no pool of fanatics who will make lots of noise and disruption in the name of common sense.

There is no extremist driven ideology promoting the middle ground that the SDP can use to power it forward.

In essence the SDP is “The Sensible Party” and sadly in the real world this means it will fare even less well than its namesake in Monty Python.

Clearly, if the SDP cannot make a bigger impact on Parliamentary Elections than at Peterborough, especially when offering a truly superb candidate as Patrick O’Flynn, then it needs to re-think its strategy.

Especially as Parliamentary elections  are ruinously expensive in money, time and effort.

Even if there was a miracle pathway to parliamentary success it would be pretty much choked off today by the Brexit Party. Both partys are strongly pro-brexit but today all the electoral firepower is with the Brexit Party.

If anything, in this narrow point in time where Brexit will be the electoral priority of those who would potentially vote SDP then a vote for the  SDP will only be a counter-productive vote splitter in Parliamentary elections.

After Brexit though, things change.

Unlike the Brexit Party, the SDP is not seen (if it is seen at all!) as a single issue group. The Brexit Party is. Much as it tries to say otherwise it is seen as a single issue concern. The clue is in the name.

There are also avenues in other tiers of UK government that the Brexit Party appears to be simply not interested in. These offer fertile grounds for the SDP and some are in fact starved of any political input from just about anyone.

So could the SDP have a relationship with the Brexit party? And how can the SDP seek a pathway to influence and power in the near term other than through Westminster?

Here's the full set of posts on this topic.

The Social Democratic Party - Where Now?

The SDP and the Brexit Party

SDP: Local Politics and the Low Hanging Fruit

Arming the Parish Councillors

Parish Councillors: Party Aligned? or Independent?

Parish Councils are Dying: So What?

An EU Presidential Election: One Candidate in a Secret Ballot

The election of the new EU Commission President (Ursula Von Der Leyen) made me wonder what percentage of the vote the other candidates got.

Oh Silly me!

She was the only candidate.

Of course! This is the EU after-all.

I know Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-Un and Muammar Gaddafi all managed to to have "democratic elections"  while being the only candidate on the ballot paper. So I suppose its not too surprising the EU has followed suite.

Maybe we should be grateful.

Just imagine how much more it would cost if they had TWO candidates - or (gulp!) three! Especially if one or more didn't tow the EU party line.

God forbid. What would have happened if  a EU sceptic had won? What if someone who was not signed up to the EU bureaucratic dream had aced it?

I dare say there must be EU bureaucrats who have thought that very thought. I expect they'll be off the Valium and out of therapy soon.

Anyway. To me for some strange reason, the election of Ursula Von Der Leyen seemed rather odd.

It was not just that she was the only person on the ballot paper either.

At least old Saddam Hussein got a resounding 99% support by his Parliament when he was elected.

I understand poor Ursula only got 52%.

Just imagine the shock. You are the only name on the ballot paper. Yet when you win you find you were actually contesting a one way marginal and nearly came second.

Idly I wondered just who HAD voted for our Ursula.

As always I started out with a grand scheme. I wanted to figure out what percentage of the EU electorate (via MEPs per capita) had voted for her.

As I discussed HERE the size of population per MEP varies from 73,000 right up to 900,000 depending on which country you are voting in. But all MEPs have equal voting rights.

Clearly some MEPs are more equal than others.

So maybe by finding out the nationality of her MEP supporters I could work out whether she indirectly enjoyed more or less than 50% support from the overall EU electorate.

Seemed reasonable.

But I looked and I looked. No table could be found.

Then I found this VoteWatch.eu - Why is the vote on Ursula Von Der Leyen secret?

It appears that our elected representative were so intimidated by the prospect of being found out regarding whether they supported dear Ursula or not they insisted on a secret ballot.

Now, you might think that had this been Saddam Hussein's election, such a secretive scheme may have been a good idea.

Bearing in mind that those that opposed him usually ended up committing suicide that is.

(Fair dues - you have to admit - opposing Saddam Hussein was a pretty suicidal thing to do in the first place.)

But what are we make of a Parliament that is so gutless and so frightened of their political opponents that they demand anonymity?

Would their opponents have terrorised them with hurty words if they voted the "wrong" way?

I suppose as well as the hurty words the prospect of being a persona non grata and seriously compromising the perks and expenses may have weighed heavily as well.

So sadly, we will never be able to know who exactly elected Ursula Von Der Leyen. Let alone who voted for her non existent opponent.

So my grand scheme is in tatters.

We will never know if Ursula Von Der Leyen enjoys more or less than 50% support of the EU electorate.

But what the hell eh? 

The one thing we can all be certain of is this:

The version of democracy as (mal)practiced by the EU is merely a veneer. 

Window dressing. 

A sham.

So even if I had proved that she had significantly less than 50% electorate support, it wouldn't have mattered anyway.

Hey Ho.

The EU Parliament: A Fake Democracy

As we digest the Python-esque election of the new Eu Commission President (she was the only candidate on the ballot paper) I thought I’d have a look at exactly how "democratic" the  EU Parliament actually is.

Lets compare the way Parliamentary democracy is conducted in the UK and the way it is conducted in the EU Parliament. 

UK Democracy

As you know, the UK uses First Past the Post (FPTP) for 650 parliamentary seats (soon to be 600 when the Boundary changes take place)

Many think (myself included) FPTP is a pretty crap voting system. It needs updating. It can (and has) lead to over/under representation.

But even so, within the limits of geographical practicality, the UK election process attempts to be scrupulously fair.

Currently we are about to implement changes to the constituency boundary’s as dictated by the independent Boundary Commission. These changes happen to ensure the fairest possible representation across the country

In mainland UK, constituencies must have an electorate of between 72,810 and 80,473 registered voters. 

Northern Ireland has slightly (but only slightly) different requirements where the minimum is lowered to 70,810.

There are four unavoidable exceptions to these rules. All involve islands. But these exceptions are based on practicality and geography, not on deliberate political manipulation.

Even so, the absolute outlier (Western Isles constituency size - 21,200) is only over represented by a factor of less than 3.5:1.

A great deal of effort is expended trying to ensure that constituency sizes are fair. 

In fact, (except for the four anomalies), all constituencies across the UK will be within 5% of the median value regarding electorate size. 

Truly, within the bounds of practicality, one persons vote is worth much the same as another.

But what about the EU Parliament?

Elections to the EU parliament are conducted by a party list system known as the d’Hondt system. 

While d'Hondt does have issues and is not really a true proportional representation system it does (more or less) ensure a fair result across a country.

And in that, we have the problem. 

Or rather the deliberately contrived anti-democratic malapportionment as used by the EU.

While it is true that each country elects its MEPs by d’Hondt, the size of constituencies from one country to another varies massively. 

By massively I don’t mean double or even triple. I talking orders of magnitude.

Lets look at the dynamics of this related to the UK which has 73 MEPs (or a representation per MEP of about 900,000 citizens)

The greatest over-representation is that on Malta which has 6 MEPs each representing about 73,000 Maltese citizens)

So compared to the UK, Malta is over-represented by a factor of over 12:1. 

If you were to reflect the variation in EU constituency size onto the UK, it would be like having constituencies (each still returning one MP) having their electorate size varying between 6000 voters and 80,000 voters.

This is no accidental cock-up or historical legacy. This is deliberate. The EU even have a term for it they call it "Degressive Democracy".

Degressive (or even Regressive) it may be. But I think few would consider it democratic.

Malta is the worst example. But not by much. If you add up the seats allocated to the nine smaller EU countries you soon get to the 73 seats allocated to the UK.

The difference is the UK has a population of 66 million. If you add up the seats and populations of the smallest 9 EU nations you find that they have a total population of 17 million

That means that these 9 countries (compared to the UK) are over represented by at least 4:1 or by an even higher over-representation than the absolute worst case geographical anomaly in the UK parliament.

The difference is the Western Isles is an outlier due to the practicality of the situation whereas these nine EU countries are over represented by deliberate policy of the EU.

But it gets worse.

There is even a significant voter advantage compared to the UK  with larger countries. 

Germany has the largest national population in the EU with a population 82 million. The UK's population is 66 million. Yet Germany still has a per capita (i.e. per person) voter advantage of 1.05:1. 

So the Germans get 96 seats. The UK gets 73. 

If it was fair they’d get 91 to our 73. 

If the EU “Degression” concept was anything more than outright Gerrymandering they’d have around 85.

This can only be called what it is: Rigged and anti-democratic.

Of course that only applies if (like me) you believe that democracy is defined as one persons vote should be worth (more or less) the same as the next persons vote.

When one persons vote is worth the same as 12 others in another country - In my book that is fake democracy.

So why has the EU deliberately set out to do this? 

There are reasons. Most of which in my opinion are malign and are actually more to do with subverting democracy rather than supporting it. (more in another post)

But whatever the reasons, I think it is clear that the UK democracy, even with the crap FPTP voting system does its best to be fair. 

While the EU deliberately sets out to be demonstrably and deliberately unfair. It perverts democracy to its own design and it does this with a ruthless and deliberate policy.

The sooner we are out of this monster the better.

Boycotting a Second Eu Referendum

Remember the Eu Referendum 2016?

The 2016 EU referendum was the biggest and most well attended celebration of democracy ever held in the UK. As we all know, on a huge turn-out, the majority voted to leave the EU.

Even so, the Leave majority should have been higher. But many were intimidated into voting remain by a mountain of ugly fear-mongering propaganda. All paid for by the wealthy corporate sponsors of the remain campaign.

Yet enough of the proles held their nerve.

We metaphorically punched the sneering metropolitan elite and their political stooges on the nose.

We demanded the return of national self-determination. No more should we be dictated to by an anointed group of self serving bureaucrats, especially by those in foreign lands.

We should all remember as well that this was no overnight whim of the British public. We have been promised (and then denied – because they thought they’d lose) referenda on EU membership by all main political parties over many years. The Eu referendum was only held when the Conservatives ran out of wriggle room.

Implementing Our Decision?

But how goes the proud boast published and sent to every home in the land? Do you remember? The promise that whatever the result, the governemt would

[quote] “implement your (the voters) decision”[unquote]

It goes badly.

It goes badly not because a democratic desire for self determination is ill considered or that removing ourselves from a ugly monolithic and elitist bureacracy is wrong.

It goes badly because there is a well funded, EU inspired tranch that seeks to overturn the democratic decision of the UK population.

The EU has a long and shameful history of doing this (I won't bore you with it here but here’s a pre-referendum post of mine detailing their methods Click Here …).

So whats the plan?

How the EU plans to De-Rail Brexit.

Going on past performance and the current remainer MSM reporting (See Here) it looks like the main EU battle plan is to force a second referendum. 

There will be another huge fear campaign (which actually looks to be already in full swing). As the vote nears they will throw in a couple of concessions (to be reneged on later).  They have successfully done this before in Denmark (1993) and Ireland (2001 and 2008)

If they succeed, then in essence meaningful universal franchise democracy in the UK will have ended.

Referenda wise, there will be no “best of three”.

Two hundred years of progress towards meaningful democratic participation for the demos (or plebs, proles or whatever you want to call us) will have ended.

So how should we the great unwashed non metropolitan un-elitist JAMs defend our democracy from what amounts to a EU inspired coup?

Primarily we MUST consider how to see off a second referendum. Ideally we should quash a second referendum before it is held.

But unfortunately due to the leverage the Eu has on the political classes, it is likely to get political traction and be forced through parliament without having to appear in anyone's manifesto.

Don’t forget, the majority of MPs (including the Prime Minister, Chancellor and Leader of the Opposition) were/are all remainers. They are (to say the least) reluctant brexiteers. They are more interested in jobs and power than fulfilling the interests of the British public.

But if a second referendum is forced through parliament, what should we do? Here is my opinion.

Boycott a Second Referendum

(the following is my current opinion only and is open to challenge. I am quite happy to embrace better ideas and ditch this)

The published statement “We will implement your decision” means just that. It does not mean “we’ll ask again later if you say leave”.

Holding a second referendum before we have exited the EU is invalid. Nothing has changed to the extent to justify nulling the first result in favour of a second.

The first referendum was held only after it was included in a pre-election manifesto. The government was elected on that manifesto. It was a manifesto pledge and so had to be honoured, albeit reluctantly.

If remainers wish to hold a second referendum - that’s fine. As long as they obey the same rules and AFTER the original referendum is honoured.

Specifically they need to get the second referendum included as a pledge in a party manifesto. That party then needs to be elected to government on that manifesto. Then they can hold their second referendum.

So if the EU/Remainers force an invalid referendum, should we the public take part in this travesty of democracy?

My answer to that is No! (or rather HELL NO!)

The response to any imposed second referendum should be BOYCOTT.

OK this means the remainer will “win” their illegal referendum (if they are stupid enough to hold it) but as long as the turn out is derisory (say 30-35%) and wholly one sided they will clearly not have a mandate.

We can of course start organising such a boycott now. We can for example get prominent folk to publicly state they will not vote in such an invalid referendum.

I would suspect that given the prospect of a significant referendum boycott the remainers/Eu may take fright and the second referendum would be abandoned anyway.

Finally we the Boycotters, as well as pledging to boycott the vote, we can also sign a declaration refusing to aknowledge the validity of the bogus second referendum.

So that’s my idea. Maybe you have a better one. Write it up let’s get the ideas out there. If we are going to defeat this anti-democratic EU inspired conspiracy – we need to get the ball rolling.

Time is getting short!

A Love Letter to Europe

I know some of our European friends are quite shocked to find out that we will be probably voting to leave the Eu. So I thought I'd write them an explanation why I'll vote Leave. 

My Dear European Friends,

So, how has it come to this?

In 1973 I voted to join the Common Market. I was (and still am) a passionate supporter of a European Free trade area. I love Europe and I love my European friends and work colleagues.

So it is with sadness that I have to tell you that on the 23rd July I will be voting to leave the Eu. This is not a snap decision. I have agonized over this decision for a long time.

I feel I owe you an explanation, so here's why.

The most precious gift possessed by the peoples of Europe is Democracy. It is almost trite to remind you that millions died from all around the world to preserve it and promote it. Now, at last, all European countries are (to a greater or lesser extent) democratic.

Perhaps though, we should not forget that many of the countries in the Eu were, until quite recently, dictatorships. Over half of the countries in the Eu had totalitarian governments within the last 70 years. Maybe that explains the lack of rigour in your demands for democracy within the Eu itself.

That to me, is a very big problem.

Above all else, for me, the lack of democratic accountablity with the Eu is the reason to leave.

Tony Benn was hardly my favorite politician, but he beautifully summarised it as follows:

He said:

"...one can ask five questions:" 

1. "What power do you have? "
2. "Where did you get it?" 
3. "In whose interests do you exercise it?"
4. "To whom are you accountable?"
5. "And, how can we get rid of you?" 

He then pointed out that

"Anyone who cannot answer the last of those questions does not live in a democratic system."  

The Eu legislature is un-elected and unaccountable. Only the un-elected commission can propose legislation.

True - there is a fig-leaf of democracy in an elected Eu Parliament. But this is an emasculated talking shop. It cannot instigate legislation, which has to be the prime reason for any parliament. The Eu Parliaments powers are for all intents and purposes, little more than the UK House of Lords.

This is wrong.

But worse than this, is the way the Eu bends democracy to breaking point in order to get its way.

Several times treaties have been legitimately and democratically rejected by national referenda. On each occasion the Eu has instigated a fear campaign and forced another referendum within the country concerned to reverse the decision. (See earlier Post here)

Even worse they can (and have) deliberately overthrown democratic decisions. The worst and most flagrant example of this involved the defunct Eu Constitution and the subsequent affront to democracy called the Treaty of Lisbon.

I'll just remind you how this shocking anti-democratic coup took place.

The original Eu Constitution was vetoed by two referenda in France and Holland. Further referenda vetoes were certain.

Consequently the Eu Constitution (per-se) was dropped.

A victory for democracy?

Hardly.

By sleight of hand the Commission resurrected the constitution.

They replaced it with the (deliberately) unintelligible Treaty of Lisbon. It is unintelligible because it is in essence a set of line by line amendments to existing treaties. They are amended to reflect the content of the vetoed constitution.

As an amendment to existing treaties, the Treaty of Lisbon did not require countries to exercise a referendum. Only Ireland held a referendum. They vetoed the Treaty of  Lisbon. Undeterred, the Eu Oligarchy forced a re-run. After a scare campaign the result was reversed.

Democracy was defeated. The ruling Eu Oligarchy ignored the true wishes of the peoples of the Eu. They imposed their Eu Constitution.

Such actions demonstrate a total contempt for democratic rule.

So I simply cannot stand by while an already remote, elitist Oligarchy turns into a dictatorship. My country, my children and my grandchildren deserve better than that.

There is sadly far, far more.

The appalling treatment of African nations,
Debilitating uncontrolled immigration and emigration.
The advanced planning for an Eu "army"
The shocking underhand and undemocratic actions taken in the Ukraine.

Then there is the stinking cesspit of Eu wide cronyism and corruption.

For 40 years all political partys in the UK have tried to deal with these issues. But the unelected self serving Eu elite studiously stone-wall reform and ignore requests to change.

We can do no more.

So there it is my friends. We have to say good-bye.

Maybe the shock of the UK leaving the Eu will get things get sorted out. If the corrupt Eu Oligarchy is brought to heel maybe we can again have a closer relationship. But not with things as they are.

I do hope we can remain friends.

Love

Billothewisp

Rotten to the Core

You would have thought that after the cash for questions scandal and the the expenses outrage, our Dear Leaders would have learned that Joe Public gets a bit pissed off about MP's fiddling the system.

But No. These arrogant, self serving buffoons are at it again.

Tim Yeo MP is Chairman of the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee. A role that demands even handedness and a level of technical competence. My last post was about how technically unsuitable he is for such a role. But really that is simply the tip of the iceberg.

The biggest scandal about Mr Yeo chairmanship is that he is in the pay of the renewables industry.
( See Here ) and ( Here )

Tim Yeo, The Chairman of the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee is also the  President of the Renewable Energy Association ("The voice of the renewables industry in the UK" or so they say) and has directorships with an assortment of renewable energy companies that rake in about £140,000 a year.

Can you imagine the hullaballo that would erupt if the Chairman of the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee was found to be a in the pay by (say) BP, Centrica and British Coal? Or that he was (say) president of the Oil & Gas UK? (the UK oil and gas trade body)

You can almost taste the rightous indignation that would spurt forth from the wind industry cartel. Actually I would be outraged too, just as I am about his current real "arrangments".

There is an old saying about who pays the piper calls the tune.  But whatever, it is a nice little earner for Mr Yeo all the same.

So is this outrage restricted to one morally challenged member of our ruling elite?

Dream on. ( See Here )

John Selwyn Gummer, now Lord Deben is now Chairman of the Climate Change Committe (CCC) he is also chairman of a company ( Forewind ) which plans to build hundreds of ultra subsidised offshore turbines. But Selwyn Gummer is a busy bloke, he also chairs a lobbying consultancy with a speciality in advising clients how to make money out of Global warming.

The logo of the CCC is "independent advisers to the UK Government on tackling and preparing for climate change".

Are they having a laugh or what?

So is that it? Two dodgy members of the Great and Good? Sorry no. It isn't. This article ( Here )  finds another THREE members of the CCC with questionable allegiences.

Then of course we have Cameron, who personally recommended Gummer for the post. His father in law rakes in around 300,000 a year by hosting a wind farm.

Cleggs wife is a director of a wind energy company.

It goes on and on.

Even after the fiddles, outrages and pocket lining of the last two decades our MP's are still falling over themselves to rake in the cash at the expense of their moral obligation to even handedness and the electorate..

No wonder Public confience in our political establishment is at an all time low.

Tim Yeo, Contraception and Energy Policy

It appears the Tory MP Tim Yeo has several nice little earners supplimenting his MP salary. ( See Here ) ( And Here ) He is paid considerable amounts of money for what appear to be nominal work load commitments to a number of renewable energy companies and trade bodies. Bearing in mind how self serving and morally challenged our MP's tend to be, it is unsurprising that he see's no clash of interests in also being the  Chairman of the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee as well.

Dear old Tim is also an avid supporter of on-shore wind farms. Avid that is, until one is threatened to be imposed on his own turf, then all of a sudden the thing is "inappropriate". Do I detect the whiff of hypocrisy?

That is perhaps unsurprising as he was also an enthusiastic supporter of John Major's "Back to Basics" speech while also being the father of four children by three women, one of which he was married to.

But never mind. I'm not really interested in the whether Tim Yeo knows how to use a condom or not, and I am quite sure there are much worse examples of sexual proclavity within our noble leaders. But I am quite interested in exploring how technically competent he is. After all this is all about how our country will meet the technical challenges related energy supply for probably the next fifty years.

Now I know I being a little naive here, but I would have thought that someone occupying such a crucial technical position would be - well, an Engineer. Or a numerate scientist. A medic would suffice. But really, it would have to be someone who could claim several years of numerate technical competence. Someone who could see through the bullshit.

So, what qualifications for such a role has our swampie hero got? A Doctorate in Power Engineering? Maybe at least a degree in a numerate discipline. But I'm not obsessed by pieces of paper, has he alternatively got long term design experience in a technical subject?

Tim Yeo went to Cambridge. So far - so good. I know some awsomely capable engineers who went to Cambridge.

So what was it? Physics? Mechanical Engineering maybe? Sadly No. Tim Yeo, the man who is essentially in charge of guiding the technical development of our energy policy has a degree in....

History.

Yes folks, the technical direction of our national energy policy in in the hands of a self serving hypocrite with a degree in history.

God help us all.

Democracy and Gerrymandering

Billothewisp was delighted to see this article in the Independent claiming that there has been a “Remarkable” rise in voter registration.

Believe me, nobody would be happier than me if it turns out to be genuine. One of the failures of our democracy is that it engages with too few of the electorate.

But I have worries. Hopefully this is paranoia, simply brought on by a lack of a regular haircut. But one comment at the end of the Independent article raised the hairs on the back of my neck.

Quote:
“The officer at the council showed me his computer screen to validate my details, what was then immediately noticeable that some moderate sized houses on my road had 40-50 registered voters registered to them which were at most able to accommodate 8 people.”

When questioned the officer shrugged his shoulders.

I will repeat that.

He shrugged his shoulders.

Democracy can easily be subverted by its enemies. Especially if no one cares.

Really, we must guard our democracy better than this. It is more important than income tax, traffic offences or VAT all of which have hoards of police/inspectors/officials protecting them. Democracy needs to be defended as well.

Gerrymandering is an ugly inexcusable crime. If it is found (or suspected) it must be vigorously and publicly investigated. Any perpetrators must be prosecuted.

If proven, those involved should go to jail.

Our democracy is in enough trouble as it is without being perverted with Gerrymandering.

Hat tip to Richard at EU Referendum Who blogged about this here first.

A Wonderfully Subversive Election Video

This is so damn good I had to put a link to it here.
This video has probably changed the way I will vote. It is just so ruthlessly accurate.
Unless you are happy and content with our present ugly political status-quo, watch this today.

More Money for ScotlandSay the Liberals

News from the Liberal Doo-Dahs suggest more money should be spent on Scotland. As you may remember, the Liberals, are led by .. Er, Um...Thingy.

That is the infinitely forgettable young suit who, with his dad, rules over our Mung bean eating friends in the Liberal Thingy-whatists.

A brief diversion from the topic of this post follows, as I try to remember his name. Avoid as you wish.

---diversion starts here---

But what is his name? Something to do with Christmas as I recall. Rudolph? Santa? No.
Something about hell also breaks into my memory. Daemon? No? Nick? Yes!

Its Nick!

As in old Nick or St. Nick!!

But Nick What?

Ah Yes! Its Nick Griffin!

But no. No. That's not right. Same sort of meaningless drivel but he is more nasty and less woolly than our Liberal Doo-Dah Friend.

A derogatory electronics term comes to mind: Kludge. Yes that's describes the Liberal ping-pongs.
Nick Kludge, Klodge,Kleege, Cleege, Clegg. Clegg!

Its Clegg!

Nick Clegg Rules over the non-carnivorous plant hugging Liberal-wot-sits

But never mind he is not the point of concern about this post.

---diversion ends here---

The report concerning more money for Scotland is in this BBC report here.

It looks like another of the Liberal Bing-Bongs wants to spend even more money on our Scottish brethren. This is despite the Scottish being given 117% of the funding per head of the English riff-raff. Courtesy of the Barnett formula.

Of course this unfairness does not really matter. The English have no parliament or representation so how are they going to complain?

As one of the unrepresented English riff-raff may I suggest to my ruffian English colleagues that they give our erstwhile and ferociously sincere Liberal bing-bongs a piece of their mind. They could do this while being door-stepped during the coming electioneering.

One topic for discussion may be the selective amnesia the bing-bongs have concerning the financial and electoral injustice done us sour faced cruel little Englanders.

Remind them how close they have come to political oblivion in the past.

Then further remind them that the ugly and despised English have long political memories. Especially about those who have swindled them out of their fair share of resources in order to buy votes and toady up to others in our Island.

I expect their eyes will glaze over and you, my English barbarian associates, will be regarded as assorted forms of lunatic. But never mind.

Unlike Thingy and the rest of the Liberal Ding-Dongs, English democracy has a future.

Why has this country of ours been so badly treated? Why have the English become the despised whipping boys and cash cows for the rest of these islands?

When they have to answer such questions, then maybe our lettuce crunching friends in the Liberal flip-flops may get the idea that each part of these island deserve the same representation, financial allocation and fair play.

The Falklands: Time to Deal?

I suspect that this post is not going to be too popular. But I believe that the time has come for us to try and negotiate with the Argentinians and hopefully come to an amicable agreement over the the future of the Falkland Islands.

Politicians are the same the world over. Currently the Argentinian government is in trouble. As a result it is playing on the patriotism of the Argentinians and appealing to their sense of injustice over the Falklands. You could easily imagine Brown and his bunch of reprobates doing much the same if they had a chance.

In playing the Malvinas card, the Argentinian government is also attracting support from all the lunatics and psycho's that control much of South America. The ruling elites in Cuba and Venezuela are loving it and are keen to ramp up hostility. See This BBC report

It wrankles most Brits when foreigners start making demands, especially when they are backed by the likes of Castro and Chavez. But we must see the bigger game that the dictators are playing.

They win even if Argentina gets nowhere. They want to destabilise the new democracy on their doorstep. A successful democracy in Buenos Aires must be a real nightmare to the likes of Castro and Chavez. The Cuban and Venezuelan oligarchy are keen to exploit any division that may do down a fair democracy in Argentina. Then maybe they can expand their bankrupt Marxist ideology southward.

While we should never do deals with dictatorships or military juntas, we should always seek to deal with democracies. Even if it means meeting them half way.

A fair and accommodating solution could be found if there was a will to do so on both sides. But negotiation would have to be conducted without the drunken megaphone diplomacy that so pollutes Anglo-Argentinian relations in both directions.

There is potentially a great deal of wealth and resources available in and around the Falklands. Sharing it would cement democracy into Argentina. It would also make extracting that wealth much, much, easier for us as well.

A deal between honest democracies, before the harridans can pollute the agenda would guarantee the Islanders security for a far longer time than the current military solution.

Remember while East Falkland has a population of about 3000, West Falkland is essentially uninhabited. Would it be so terrible to accommodate decent democratic Argentinians with an honest and binding deal? Say splitting the Islands in two?

If we don't, we risk the unthinkable of a conflict between two democracies. If this catastrophe ever did happen you could guarantee Castro and Chavez would be happily gloating at our expense.