This picks up from the first article, containing suggestions for an eventual renaissance of ideas and culture, a reformist agenda and positive thinking for the people of Britain as the nation resumes independence from the EU.
As I have mentioned, I believe that in the West we are everywhere stripped of our identities in connection to our intellectual and historical roots; not only that, we’ve been taught to distrust our instincts and common sense, in the name of some kind of socialised propaganda; indeed our House of Commons at times appears disconnected in its banter, seeming lack of transparency, sense of privilege and membership of secret elite organisations or affiliation to lobbying interests…
The underlying intention is to restore sovereignty in its various forms, protecting rights, building greater freedoms and cementing great trade deals are all good, maintaining the best possible relations around the world, by all means, with our friends in the Irish Republic and other parts of the world, certainly. Mrs May’s words seem “reassuring” but not clear. What’s the mandate from the People? How to go forward? What’s the vision?
Prosperity and freedom:
Every nation wants to prosper (and we see how the countries of Africa are damaged by the EU’s protectionism and emphasis on technologies the Africans cannot obtain – and are now becoming dependent on China to provide in return for concomitant losses in sovereign control of their land and assets) and through the option of free trade with Britain, these and other nations, suffering under the EU (or similar) or because of its sluggishness and inward-looking policies, will change their views about globalism. Strengthening our place in a free world does not mean continuing to ape whatever is going on elsewhere, but leading in new ways.
Our instinctive industriousness, inventiveness, history of leadership and good organisation can stand next to a renewed sense of vigour as we see the break-up of now failed attempts to collectivise and federalise everything around us, and hand over power to technocrats or so-called “experts”- often in the pay of vested interest groups – who believe they have ultimate wisdom in everything. In fact true wisdom lies with sovereign people.
This is really the cornerstone of how Britain can change for the better, and return to democratic sovereignty. Laws have for too long been passed onto statute via supranational diktat and not because the people have requested them. For example, people have not requested mass surveillance: but a manifesto that explains why some level of it is useful in aiding the Police, is sensible as it enables the people to choose what they are getting or else reject it with a reasonable alternative (this might one day be – and should be – a real possibility, who knows).
The making of Law in the regional assemblies makes some sense (and cooperation in every field as mentioned by the PM in her Brexit plan) but what of their content? There is no word of reform. In Westminster, the People should have direct opportunities to influence the directions of Laws to the Houses, but how, when people have for so long been taught that “their betters” will decide for them? What’s to stop the “cascading” of further globalist plans for social and economic change?
I would propose a change to the function and set-up of the House of Lords. The English Constitution allows for checks and balances to the use of power, and the House of Lords allowed to balance the Crown versus the Commons. As I have explained in other articles, the Lords now (as some have said) has no real function other than to reward “cronies”. While this is not fair to all, and it may be that some measure of an appointee-system should be retained, the HoL is not independent in any way, where it used to be, by defending its own interest, it should henceforth reflect the People’s interest.
I believe the HoL should become a directly-elected institution (probably using PR and nationally, not by Constituency) but with a cross-political identity. Members would sit in the Lords on either side of an argument (rather than according to Party) and thus speak and vote according to conscience. There would be no whip or party allegiance. Obviously parties will present candidates for election, there should be no limit on who can stand for election, no matter what their political positions.
The reformed HoL would directly represent all aspects of society and allow free exchange of ideas, and have to reach a majority position in relation to Laws and also have the power to propose Law – by majority decision. It would attract the successful and the dedicated, restoring much-needed popular sovereignty and balance. HoL direct elections would be 2 years after a General Election (and thus give important popular feedback)
To create an incentive to serve and to be paid according to good service, there should be no career incentive in politics, politician’s expense accounts I think should be lowered with immediate effect (well, from the next election!) and their salaries frozen for 4-5 years; and I believe the Parliamentary Term should be reduced to 4 years, since if government is delegating powers to the people, such a government can be sure of re-election, if it is not, it can be removed at an early opportunity before it engages in un-mandated activities using prerogatives not assented to!
Referenda for any decision that would require Royal assent, thus the Crown/monarch will know what the People’s view is before giving assent (or the government assuming Royal prerogative).
The Crown might have an enhanced role in this new vision – and funding to the Crown frozen for the Parliamentary term and any increase to be set forth in party manifestos. The Crown should aim to connect to the people more via a “Crown team” that involves itself in community meetings, school, hospitals and police. These meetings need not be elaborate “royal” affairs but informal: these Royal representatives would be regarded as ordinary people and interact on that basis.
Ceremony should not surround the Crown perforce but only on special occasions that involve the people fully.
Many feel that British society is still rather too class-based. While the socialist answer to this historical problem is wrong, having a more equal society is a good thing. The “wheels within wheels” of elitism/entitlement in all its forms should surely have no place in Britain.
Mrs May’s idea of “building” on the fundamental rights that the EU has stipulated implies agreement to them, but few were mandated. The key point is personal sovereignty under an agreed law. Most nowadays see no issue with gay marriage, there should be no supremacy of religious thinking or belief over the sovereign right of the individual under the Law; let respect and good manners return. Where gender issues, employment protection, freedom of speech, and the whole panoply of law is concerned, the Houses should now be turning to the People to ask what we want and how much we want to keep, from the EU directives, which none of us has voted for!
Part Three will discuss Policing, The Armed Forces, Tax, Unemployment and the Elderly, and the BBC