|
A NEW CONSTITUTION To End the Excessive Power of Prime Ministers |
A
CIVIC REPUBLICAN MANIFESTO 2008 For Great Britain VIRTUE FREEDOM ASPIRATION WEALTH PEACE |
DEBT FREE MONEY
To End the Misery of Debt Based Money |
PENTASKEL (Acrobat version) |
REDISCOVERING BRITISH CIVIC REPUBLICANISM |
Henry_Ireton2.jpg) HENRY IRETON Statesman (1611-1651) BRITISH REPUBLICAN |
| For up to date comments on current news stories from a Civic Republican point of view go to | ||
|
"When the populace is in power an is well-ordered, it will be stable, prudent and grateful, in much the same way or a better way than a prince however wise he be thought" Machiavelli (1531) |
||
| HOME DEBT FREE MONEY INSTITUTIONS IDEALS CONSTITUTION REPUBLICAN PARTY | ||
|
The sections can be read in any order but it is best to start with the three INTRODUCTION sections.(Grayed out pages have not yet been posted) --------------------
Economic Enfranchisement Non-aggressive Foreign Relations
Authority to Create Constitution Lower House Upper House Judiciary Supreme Court Public Services Monetary Policy Regions and Federation (to be completed)
Meritocracy Civil Society Crime and Penal reform Vice Cultural and Intellectual Life Church Disestablished Virtue and Happiness Young Generation
Monetary Policy (to be completed) Existing MPC and FSA Banking Money Flow Currency Industry
First British Republic History of Republicanism
Problems of Current System Advantage Votes Electoral System
National Flag Federal Flag
Republican Theory General History of Republicanism in Britain First Republic Period in Britain British Constitution Economics Enlightenment
The Need for a Republican Party
|
DEMOCRACY
"Democracy" and "democratic" are words that frequently pass the lips of British elected politicians and commentators. In spite of this, Democracy is a concept that is little understood in the Kingdom. We live in a Democracy, but what does this mean?
One problem we have in understanding the true nature of Democracy is that it is almost the only word in our political vocabulary that we use to describe our form of government*.
We know we are a Monarchy but that does not seem to be of primary importance as the Monarchy does not exercise any real power. We know we are not a Republic but what Republicanism really means is even more remote from our awareness than Democracy. (For most people in the Kingdom Republicanism simply means an absence of Monarchy but this is totally inadequate.) We know we are a Parliamentary Democracy, but with no acquaintance of any other kind this means little.
We do know that Democracy is apple pie, that is to say, it is A GOOD THING. But, like lots of good things, can we have too much of it?
Does it lead to other things that are undesirable? Should we be afraid of "mob rule"? Is Democracy associated with "dumbing down"? Do we get the best leaders through Democracy or the best demagogues? How can the short term electoral cycle be reconciled with the long term interests of the nation? Why does our Democracy produce increasing voter apathy?
Immediate responses to questions about our Democracy may focus on its imperfect nature. The "first past the post system" means amongst other problems that the make up of Parliament does not reflect overall voting patterns leading occasionally to the Party that forms the government even having fewer votes than its rival - surely by any measure an unacceptable situation.
This leads to calls for a system of "proportional representation", particularly by the smaller parties that the current system disadvantages the most. But such systems have other problems such as government instability and ineffectual coalitions.
Doubtless the current system could be improved, but exactly how must be the subject of debate. Standing back from this debate, what we do know for certain is that Democracy is never going to be perfect. It remains an "Ideal" to strive for.
* * *
In past Republican thinking, Democracy did not occupy the central place that it now does in our political life. In fact, some of the greatest contributors to Republican ideas were not democrats at all. This is the case of the revered Montesquieu, whose writings were so influential on the Framers of the American Constitution.
More commonly the view was that Democracy in a Republic should be moderated, the fear being that universal suffrage (of a kind which is now the norm) would lead to "mob rule". Behind this view was the belief that there existed an "elite" whose opinion should count more than that of "everyman". However, a degree of Democracy was necessary. This might be in order to avoid having a dissatisfied and perhaps rebellious people or, as was the case with the Roman Republic, it was believed that a nation could only achieve greatness if everybody could vote.
In looking back at the history of Republics, it was commonly thought (with some justification) that the demise of the Roman Republic which lead to its supplanting by an Emperor was the result of the people's assemblies having too much power, and the Senate, which represented the "elite" in society, having too little. This example was said to illustrate the dangers of "mob rule".
One historical point that is worth appreciating, when we compare different democratic systems, is that in the ancient world there was only "Direct Democracy", that is to say, citizens had to vote on the issues themselves and to do this they had to be physically present at the Assembly. This is in contrast to "Representative Democracy" whereby individuals, not issues, are voted on and the individuals, or Representatives, then attend the Assembly and vote on the issues without further consultation with the electorate.
In Modern states there is only Representative Democracy, with the important exception of Referendums when the electorate vote directly on important issues, usually changes to the Constitution.
However, an essential element that belonged to the old Direct Democracy has never been lost: in order to vote for an issue you have to be physically present. If a Representative is too ill, for instance, to turn up in the assembly to vote, it is quite simple, they do not vote. In a way, this might seem harsh. In our electronic age, why should not they be allowed to vote with a "pager" wherever they happened to be. Tempting as it might seem, we must never go down that road. The sense of live physical assemblies is a bedrock of democratic and republican politics. It always has been and no advance in technology is going to change that*.
We usually think of Democracy as having been invented in ancient Greece and the example of 5th century Athens is held up mainly because we know so much about it. Whereas Republicanism is not by any means the same thing as Democracy, most Republics have had a fair degree of Democracy.
The outstanding exception to this is the Venetian Republic which lasted five hundred years with nothing that we should recognise as Democracy. The ancient Roman Republic nominally had Democracy and all male adult citizens (slaves were of course not citizens) could vote (a situation that few Modern States attained before the twentieth century). The problem was the system of direct voting at an assembly, which, while it worked in a small city-state like Athens, could hardly work very well in the extended nation (it included most of Modern Italy) that the Roman Republic became.
* * *
Before moving on to the specifics of how the Democratic Ideal can be realised in the revised British Constitution, it is worth considering for a moment the thinker that more than any other invented the character of Modern Democracy and who enshrined in his writing its faults as much as its virtues: Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
Before Rousseau's time, as we have discussed, Democracy, in the sense of voting for issues or representatives by a large section of the population, had existed in various states.
Non-Democratic voting also existed. An example is of the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, who was elected by "Electors" who were the princes of the seven states that belonged to the "Empire". This is an election, but hardly a "democratic" one, if Democracy is taken to mean Rule by the People. Similarly, voting of the non-democratic kind took place in the Venetian Republic.
Ancient Rome and Athens did have Democratic voting for practically all the (male) citizens could vote (even if we might think that the enfranchisement of the Roman citizen living in the Po Valley who had to travel 400 kilometers to cast his vote in the Forum in Rome was compromised).
But prior to Rousseau, "Democracy" for most writers it was a loaded term. It was associated with the idea of threat to stability and "mob rule". Stable civilisations had always been based on monarchies or aristocracies or both, and the idea that all members of society could vote was seen as dangerous. As already mentioned the demise of the Roman Republic was frequently held up as an example of this danger, as was the short-lived nature of the Athenian democratic experiment. This was the view of Republican thought as much as any.
Rousseau, who did not have a privileged background, reversed this connotation of the word Democracy. He said that the true sovereignty of a nation lay not with any privileged group but with the people. He said nations should be governed by "Popular Sovereignty" which reflected the "Will of the People" and, furthermore, Democracy is the means by which "Popular Sovereignty" could be realised.
This idea struck fear in the hearts of his conservative contemporaries, especially when the French Revolution followed on from its publication. Nowadays, of course, "Popular Sovereignty" is an idea that is unlikely to make waves, and if any mainstream politician is asked they will say they support it.
The term "Will of the People" that goes with it is perhaps a little more problematic, but for Rousseau they were the same thing. Indeed they are the same thing for, if we stop to think about it. One implies the other.
The problem with both the terms, "Popular Sovereignty" and "Will of the People", is that they imply a unity and this was intrinsic to Rousseau's conception of them. If a single "Will of the People" exists then it is rather an open question to say what it is. This leaves it open for any demagogue to claim to represent the "Will of the People".
Even more worryingly, it leaves it open for the Leader of a nation, whether elected or not, to claim to represent the "Will of the People" and so put themselves forward as the embodiment of "Popular Sovereignty". This concern was recognised clearly by conservative and republican commentators in the 18th century and after.
For Rousseau, there was no problem in how to realise "Popular Sovereignty" as a government of the country. Hold democratic elections, and the winners would embody the "Will of the People".
There is however one rather obvious, fundamental problem with this scenario. In free elections people vote differently and so whilst the "Will" of the people who vote for the winners might arguably be embodied in the government, that of those who voted for a losing side is not. So how can Democracy truly reflect a unitary "Will of the People"?
Rousseau was aware of this difficulty and faced up to it with a rather disingenuous argument. He said that if he had voted for the losing side, it followed that he had not correctly understood the "Will of the People" and so was wrong. His opinion could therefore be discounted leaving the government reflecting what was correctly the "Will of the People".
What this discussion of Rousseau makes clear it that the equating of Democracy with Popular Sovereignty is problematic. And yet when people talk about Democracy now it is, nevertheless, imbued with the rather mythic idea of Popular Sovereignty. This is what makes it such a powerful word and this is why politicians use it over and over again.
This slant or "spin" on the word makes it popular with elected Leaders. It enables them to suggest that, because they have been elected, they can claim to be the embodiment of the popular will, the Will of the People.
They do not, of course, use the expression "Will of the People". Rather, the one they use in arguing this is "mandate of the people". By virtue of their electoral victory they have received a "mandate", not just from those who voted for them, but from the "people" in general. Thus the idea of "mandate" is compounded with that of Popular Sovereignty. The Leader believes he or she embodies the popular will through the "mandate". And the weakness of the present British constitution in the face of Executive Power enhances this delusion. The popular "authority" bestowed by the mandate then justifies all sorts of radical and unwanted measures.
To take recent examples, the aggrandisement of the importance of their mandates was intrinsic to the Prime Ministerships of Thatcher and Blair. In spite of always achieving office with a puny percentage of votes in all their winning elections, Thatcher and Blair both believed they had a mandate to do pretty well whatever they wanted.
This illustrates the dangers of Democracy and these have been present throughout its history. Democracy is not just apple pie and we should view with suspicion any politician who talks as if it were.
Of course we need Democracy and it one of the Five Ideals that the Constitution will aspire to embody. But if Democracy were the only Ideal we had to work with, as was the case with Rousseau, we should have no defense against its dangers.
And Rousseau's ideas lead directly to dictatorship, as, some have argued (not altogether fairly), was demonstrated by the events following the French Revolution (the Terror, the Napoleonic wars), which showed where the exercising of the Will of the People would lead.
* * *
To minimise the dangers of Democracy, it must be balanced with the other Four Ideals and in this Democracy is no different from the other Ideals. For Democracy itself plays a vital part in moderating the dangers posed by the others. To get this balance between Democracy and the other Ideals as good as possible is a primary task in framing the Constitution.
In confronting this task a fundamental problem that should be recognised is that, in the Kingdom, is that there is too much emphasis on Democracy in relation to the other Ideals that should be built into the constitution. Current leaders love talking about Democracy for it can justify a degree of authority that goes beyond what is reasonable.
Having understood that Democracy is a high, and probably unattainable, Ideal, we can now bring the argument down to earth somewhat by describing what the attempt to realise this Ideal can mean in practice in a Modern Republic. For this we turn to the Five Practical Aspects of Democracy, which are as follows:
These will be dealt with in turn. 1. Government by the majority, or largest minority, through elections of Representatives by secret ballot. Non-constitutional issues in a Modern Republic are decided, not by direct voting, but by electing Representatives in the way with which we are familiar. And Democratic elections produce not government by the people as a whole but government by those who have the majority, or largest minority, of Representatives. The consequence of this is that the views of those who are not counted in the majority or largest minority are not represented in Government. Or more precisely, they are not represented in the Government Institution for which the elections were held. In the Kingdom, the only national elections held are to the "Lower House" of Parliament, the House of Commons, and the party with the majority of Members of Parliament also forms the Executive. Thus, the election of the Lower House is also the election of the Executive. Those who voted for the losing parties thus have no representation on the Executive. They have some representation through their MP in the Lower House but the real power of MPs is limited. The "democratic" voting system thus fails to deliver anything like an overall Popular Sovereignty, however much the winning party may like to pretend that it does. Ultimately, there is no way of avoiding this within the arena of Democracy but there are ways in which in the overall Republican Constitution this situation will be ameliorated. Firstly, there will be democratic elections to more than one Government Institution. In France, the people vote for both the President (Executive) and the Deputies making up the House of Deputies (Parliament). In the USA, the people vote for the President, and both Houses of Congress separately, the House of Representatives and the Senate. Secondly, Republican governmental and non-governmental institutions will reflect a broader, deeper and longer term sense of the values of the nation, to balance the shorter term Democratic impulses. Thirdly, rights for minorities will be built into the Republican Constitution. Fourthly, electoral reform will be implemented to make the result of elections fairer. The call is often made for electoral reform in the Kingdom because of the blatant unfairness of the present system, where a party can even be elected into office without polling the most votes, leave alone a majority of votes. The call is often made for a system of proportional representation. This is understandable because in the Kingdom the only chance for the people to express their national political choice is through elections to a single institution, the House of Commons. However, proportional representation is not appropriate for a Republican Constitution. Proportional representation may seem an attractive idea for it is closer to the idea of Popular Sovereignty that has become associated with the Democratic Ideal. The problem with it is, not that the winner is not fairly chosen, but that there is no winner. Because of the unlikelihood of any single party ever having more than 50% of the votes in any election, there is little chance of any single party being able to form a government. This means coalitions will be needed to form governments with all the problems that goes with them. There is an argument that the messiness of coalitions truly reflects voter desire and the "popular will" and there may be truth in this. However, the Republican argument is that Democracy is not the only Ideal by which the government of the country is decided and if it has faults (and it clearly does) these can be balanced to an extent by the implementation of the other Ideals. Democracy may not produce true Popular Sovereignty but having stable government is the more important objective. This is possible to argue in the case of a Republican government, because Republican Institutionalism, because Liberalism, because Economic Enfranchisement, and because the restraints on Aggressive Foreign Policies, as well as because Democracy, will make it responsive to the nation at large not just to the constituency that elected it. So how should the present system be changed? By identifying the problem not as the absence of proportional representation, but the fact that under the "first past the post" system many votes cast are simply ineffectual. For instance, most people who live in "safe seats" are effectively disenfranchised as a vote for their preferred party will never effect the outcome. This leads to "tactical voting" where people are actually voting for a candidate they don't want. This cannot be desirable or "democratic". The problem that we need to address is not how to devise a system of proportional representation but how to devise a system that provides a "fair fight". That is to say. although your preferred party may not have won, you still know that your vote counted in the contest. This objective is achieved by means of the system of Advantage Votes described elsewhere 2. Referendums of the Electorate directly on Constitutional issues. Referendums are the only times when the electorate of a Modern State get to vote on issues directly. Even in a non-republic like the United Kingdom, the principle is accepted that matters effecting the constitution have a long term significance that goes beyond the relatively short term of the electoral cycle and so it is not right that the Executive of the day should decide on important changes to the constitution. In spite of this generally held view, only one referendum has been held in the life time of any of the Kingdom's subjects. And this was a retrospective referendum on entry into what is now the European Union. No referendum was held prior to entry, and the Conservative Government of 1970-74 that enacted the Membership, made no mention of its intention to join in its Manifesto of 1970. Membership was thus presented to the people as a fait accompli. More recently in 2007 Prime Minister Brown has refused the people a referendum on radical changes to the Constitution of the European Union with the arrogant pretence that the changes are not in fact radical. As far as the Kingdom is concerned therefore, referendums on constitutional matters are more theoretical than real. And, as discussed above, the Executive's power over constitutional matters is more or less absolute. Unlike in other Modern states, there is no "Supreme Court" or "Constitutional Council" to be referred to on constitutional matters and the Upper House, the House of Lords, has no powers of veto of them. But aside from this unique fault in the British constitutional arrangement whereby Executive Power is compounded with the constitution, we should ask when or whether referendums should be used to decide constitutional matters. The reason for referring such matters to the people in a Referendum is that they are too important for a short term Executive or Parliament to decide. But the electorate equally may be fickle in deciding on Constitutional matters. For instance, it was widely thought that French and Dutch rejection of the European Constitution in Referendums was in part down to dissatisfactions with EU which might turn out to be ephemeral. Whether or not this was the case, it demonstrates that the Electorate may take a short term view as much as its elected Representatives. How do we get around this problem? The Republican answer, which is really the only answer anyone has ever come up with, is to have institutions whose members are chosen not by democratic election but by some other means, and the other means are designed to guarantee a longer term view in decision making. For instance, the Supreme Court in the USA is chosen by appointment and the Constitutional Council in France is make up of former Presidents. If these sound like imperfect ways of making up these institutions then they probably are. But Republican Institutions represent an Ideal just as Democracy is an Ideal. That is to say, we seek to attain the Ideal as best we can, knowing that we never can absolutely attain it and, in any case, any one Ideal will have to be compromised to even begin to satisfy another. But coming back to referendums: referendums can be seen as representing one of the purist forms of Democracy, just as we might so view voting by citizens in the Agora in fifth century BCE Athens. But they are reserved for long term issues and Democracy is notoriously bad at deciding these. This is not to say that the principle of referendums for major constitutional changes should not be preserved. It is saying that Republican Institutions of Government (which we, of course, have to put in place) need also to be brought into play in deciding such issues. In this way the decision made will be the result of mature, solid, debate and consideration, and so will be respected and held to by future generations. 3. Open government If Democracy is taken in its literal sense of "rule by the people", it is clear that the people can only do that if they know what is going on. People cannot vote properly from a position of ignorance. Just as important, once the elected politicians are in place, visibility of how they govern the country provides a constant check on performance. There can be no accountability without open government. This principle is well established in the Kingdom and if politicians deceive the people this is taken extremely seriously. In spite of this, such is the nature of the power cocoon, that the UK Executive lives in, there have recently been a number of cases of members of the Government Cabinet being forced to resign (after undignified struggles) for deceiving the British people. However, the most outstanding and unforgivable example of deception, when Prime Minister Blair used fake documents to take the country to war in Iraq, went unpunished. Not all institutions of government are elected and this applies to Democracies as well as Republics. For such institutions the principle of openness is perhaps even more compelling for without it we could not expect the conduct of members of such institutions to measure up to the standards required. In a Democracy, because the people participate in the government, it is vital that there should be the best possible debate amongst the people. This debate can only be of a high quality if the people are informed. 4. Right of peaceful protest. Outside the ballot box, there is a further option for influencing government policy: that of street protest. The right to participate in such protest, providing it is peaceful must be enshrined in the Constitution. However, peaceful protest should be a last resort and an aim in framing the Constitution must be to try to make adequate provision so that such protest is rarely necessary. 5. Minimisation of citizens being subject to legislation enacted overseas This Aspect of Democracy is likely to immediately ring bells about the EU. Our membership of the European Union means that more and more legislation that affects us is being made overseas outside of our control. In theory, we have Representation in the European Parliament but few people will be convinced that this makes a significant difference to our say in European legislation. It is inevitable that if more and more legislation is made overseas then there will be a diminution of Democracy. That does not automatically mean it is a bad thing, but the question should be asked if it is. If we ask the simple question: do we believe that laws and regulations passed by a supranational body are likely to be superior to those passed by a national body? there is probably only one answer. If we ask the question; do we believe that our membership of the EU results in a loss of some sovereignty? there is definitely only one answer. The fundamental question is whether we believe the positive aspects of membership outweigh the negative*. The enacting of laws for the nation by supranational bodies works to the advantage of the power of our Executive. The Executive deals with foreign powers (which our EU partners remain) and the people do not. So the more we are governed from overseas the more the Executive can control events. However the national Constitution is formed, it cannot alter this fundamental fact. The European Union is, of course, not the only supranational body that makes laws and regulations we have to abide by, for we are signatories to other international agreements. The World Trade Organisation is one case. International agreement like Kyoto also restrain us. In signing such agreements we should, at least, be wary. We should, at least, be wary of ascribing to ideas like "Globalisation" and "Human Caused Climate Change". These may lack validity and may be serving agendas that they do not advertise. And they all provide enabling powers to our own Executive to reduce Democracy, whether that is good or bad. * * * The foregoing has discussed how the Ideal of Democracy as Popular Sovereignty does not accord with the practical processes of Democracy. If current politicians understand this difference they certainly seldom talk as if they do. But there is a further aspect of the nature of Democracy that is crucial to it that appears to be little understood. And if current politicians do understand this difference they certainly do not act as if they do. This point is that Democracy cannot function alone as a system of government: it can only function off the back of a well developed Civil Society. A current example where this ignorance is being displayed to the full with disastrous consequences is Iraq. It is clear that the American and British governments believed that Democracy could be installed in Iraq simply by setting up a democratic voting system and good government would follow on from that. They had no idea that, without a rock solid Civil Society, Democracy in Iraq would founder at the first hurdle and lead to disintegration with unpredictable consequences. Democracy was put forward as being the solution to Iraq's problems whereas in reality it could only ever be the reward for a painstaking and patient reconstruction of society. Democracy is a luxury of the privileged, not a way out of difficulty for the distressed. This is a mistake that the Framers of the Roman Republic, the Framers of the Venetian Republic and Framers of the United States Republic did not make. The problem seems to be, even in the United States (where the quality of the debate in the 18th century that lead to the setting up of the Republican Constitution was second to none) the Executive simply does not understand Republicanism. (It goes without saying, we would not expect Prime Ministers Blair or Brown to understand it.) The only reason why Democracy is possible in Great Britain is because the Civil Society, which includes many features that can be called Republican (the Magna Carta, an independent Judiciary, a Parliament that legislates without interference from the Monarchy, for instance), was built up over the centuries. Democracy, certainly in the form of universal suffrage, arrived very late and is some ways the icing on the cake. To consider another example, although we may not like to admit it, the Chinese by delaying the progress to Democracy in their country may be doing the best thing. A nation that so recently was subject to the savage dictatorship of Mao, will simply not have a sufficiently strong Civil Society in place to support fully fledged Democracy. This is hardly to justify Human Rights abuses but that really should be a separate issue. By contrast Russia may have gone too fast into a democratic system. The Chinese have less Democracy than the Russians but you have to ask the question which country, China or Russia, is the better governed and the most likely to deliver an improved quality of life for its citizens sooner (even taking into account the fact that Russia is blessed with far richer natural resources than China). * * * We will only understand Democracy when we understand the Ideal of government that more than any other complements it and balances it: Republicanism - in the form of Republican Civil Institutions. Before the god of Democracy we are all truly equal. We are all the same. Your vote has exactly the same value as mine. Of course, that is fine. That is what Democracy is about. But that is not what the whole spectrum of life is about. Until Republican Institutions are in place, the supremacy of Democracy will continue to lead society into the dead end of political apathy, sound bite politics, consumer indulgence, and the infantilisation of the culture. Democracy is to be valued, upheld and cherished. But it is not the be all and end all. It needs to be balanced. We need to look towards achievement, towards merit, towards real virtue, towards the shear god-given talent that many people have. But this is to mention words that are deeply unfashionable in the world of shining Democracy. Those who do not wish to see one individual distinguished from another in society by merit, virtue or achievement, usually resort to distinguishing us by some mark of identity: gender, colour, social background, ethnicity or sexual preference are favourites. These terms become politicised leaving as with intractable identity politics. The truly important identity we have is defined by what we have made of ourselves through work, talent, qualification and relations with others. Our primary identity in the new Republic will be defined by what we have become, not by where we have come from. Politicians who call themselves Democrats love to define us by box ticking. That's how they were elected after all. But box ticking does not say anything about us. If we are going to move beyond reliance on Democracy we will have recognise the importance of merit and virtue and achievement, and that every kind of merit and virtue and achievement does not exist everywhere. If we want to see a world beyond the world of flat equality, something is going to have to distinguish us. Class, money or background are never going to do. Merit, virtue and achievement are the values we should embrace. These may be seen as non-democratic because they foster inequality. Equality can exist in the purely Democratic realm, but it can never be dominant in any society the anyone is going to want to live in. If we do not choose the kind of inequality we want, we will get the kind we do not want.
|
SIGN UP FOR FREE WEEKLY
EMAILED NEWSLETTER Your email address: -------------------Go to previous Newsletters ------------------- Press F11 to read FULL SCREEN press F11 to undo ------------------- HENRY IRETON (1611-1651) BRITISH REPUBLICAN English soldier and statesman, leader of the Parliamentary cause during the Civil Wars against the Royalists. Distinguished military record. Member of Republican Parliament. Died a hero in command defending First Republic. *See recent David Miliband speech lasting 30 minutes in which he used the word "democracy" and related parts of speech no less than 98 times. Go to Newsvine Link
WHITE CROSS SECOND REPUBLIC NATIONAL FLAG United Republic of Great Britain Silver on White
* A similar point should be made in respect of postal or internet voting, which wherever they are tried corrupt the election result. Go to Newsvine story on this issue
* The EU is one thing, the euro is another. Membership of the euro means sacrificing any influence over monetary policy, and putting fiscal policy in a straightjacket. Membership of the euro should not be countenanced under any circumstances.
|
