So here is my response:

The comparison is specific: The EU does not allow the votes of the electorate, the results of plebiscites or the will of the populace to decide what it does. Worse, when an electorate opposes something, the EU claims that it was a protest about an unrelated issue.
The EU is currently instituting all the major objectionable features of the Lisbon Treaty (formerly known as the Constitutional Treaty) despite “No” votes in three member countries and so the failure to ratify the treaty in national parliaments. If the EU cared what the people thought it would make the following changes tomorrow:
1. It would offer a referendum on the EU Constitutional Treaty;
2. It would cease all implementation activity on Constitutional Treaty proposals that are being carried out elsewhere;
3. It would allow elections for the Commission which performs a role much like the cabinet / President of most countries in the world and so should be elected.

This from the Guardian:

Last night Tory opposition was also growing with Tim Loughton, the Tory frontbench spokesman on children and MP for Worthing East and Shoreham, cancelling a visit to Birmingham so he could oppose the proposal and Lord Baker, the Tory former cabinet minister, deciding to vote against the measure in the Lords.

At least some politicians appear to care about right and wrong — it’s a shame so many of them are in opposition.

Let’s hope David Cameron can be convinced not to abstain, but instead to show that he believes in democracy and whip up a vote against Gordon Brown’s abuse of power.

One chapter of the book covered specifically the affect of society on the accepted morality of the time. One example he gave was a quote of Abraham Lincoln.

Before I share it with you though, I should point out the parallels that observers are making between Barack Obama and Abraham Lincoln (even before he takes office tomorrow!).

But if a parallel is to be drawn we should be careful of viewing historical figures through rose-tinted glasses:

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”

To be clear, I’m not suggesting that Lincoln didn’t do some great things for the slaves of America, and I’m not suggesting he was anything but a moral man by his day’s standards, but we must know the person before we can claim to be following in his footsteps (not that Obama is).

I hope Obama lives up to America’s, and the world’s, hopes. But I hope he is a moral man by today’s judgement, and not moral as Lincoln would be judged by today’s standards!

I’ve lost some of my motivation to resolve the ‘English problem’ because I have realised when talking to normal people that there are more important things in their priority lists (like high taxes and, for them, other perceived ills).

But when the government refuses to answer the question put forward in a perfectly reasonable petition it is asking for my ire.

Consider this sentence from their response: “People in the UK share common citizenship rights, which express in political, legal and social terms what it means to be from the UK.”

Since when exactly? Since 1998 Scottish and Welsh citizens have gained immeasurably in the form of free (read: paid for by English tax payers) prescriptions, free bus travel (genuinely free, unlike the Whitehall imposed version in England which comes out of English Council tax payer’s pockets, the Scottish version is paid for by the Barnet formula), free nursing home care and free university education to name the key items.

See their response here.

The original plans were ill-thought-through but at least allowed areas of land with majority Muslim populations to remain outside of Jewish control and vice versa. Unfortunately attacks from neighbouring countries put paid to that plan and left Israel in control of the west bank of the river Jordan and the Gaza Strip.

The US moved from being strongly against the League of Nations plan to, these days, providing much of Israel’s military capability and being the only Security Council country that does not regularly criticise Israel’s actions.

But this ridiculously quick summary of the history of modern Israel is nowhere near enough and I strongly recommend anyone who doesn’t know the full story reads it on Wikipedia or similar.

From the Telegraph website today:

With Palestinian medics saying the death toll had risen to more than 780, two Hamas rockets hit the Israeli town of Ashkelon.

It’s madness, it really is. You tickle a tiger often enough and it’s going to bite; now if the tiger has bitten the last thing you do is continue to tickle — you hope it speaks and you try and reason with it and apologise for your stupidity.

Hamas may not like Israel and may not believe it ought to exist, but the way to resolve this situation (not just the current crisis) is to engage — nothing, at all, will be achieved by murder and the Israelis deserve kudos for their patience with Hamas thus far.

My reason is relatively simple: Activities carried out at summits or meetings of the European Council of Ministers are carried out for the United Kingdom of England and Wales by the Prime Minister in the name of the Head of State. This means that no-one can carry out any checks or balances on what the person in charge of the largest party in parliament does on our behalf. Since 2005 the de facto Head of State has been chosen by the MPs representing the party voted for by less than 40% of the voting population.

But my support never progressed to membership because of views expressed in Republic that I did not agree with. They were against monarchy per se (which I am not) and were keen for the Royal Family to be made to work like ‘normal’ people. Whereas my gripe is with the hole their presence causes in the constitutional robustness of the country.

I mean how can anyone complain about the Royal Family costing each of us under 70 pence each per year when the European Union is estimated to cost us approximately 50 pence per day?

But following Sunday’s revelations that Prince Charles may take a more active interest in the games that politicians play, my support has evaporated entirely. The non-interventionist Queen has overseen gross attacks on her own power and the power of her Ministers by the European Union — if the next King intends to redress that balance, and provide a little, sensible, check and balance, he is fulfilling his constitutional role. Suddenly the need for an extreme overhaul of the Head of State is removed.

Of course Republic don’t agree and are now livid that the King may want to ‘interfere’ in his Kingdom’s running without being elected. But hang on, isn’t the Prime Minister effectively unelected? Isn’t the present situation much worse? Wouldn’t we be better off having an interested and politically independent Head of State than either of the alternatives: an apathetic Head of State or one elected due to the emotions of a small proportion of the electorate?

The electorate are imperfect and make God-awful decisions some of the time — I am excited by the prospect of actually having a Head of State again.

Elect the Lords

That said, I still think we should Elect the Lords!

Sponsored link

Earn money (really) for your normal purchases at we promise to.

If you do want your opinion to be counted, though, why not join YouGov and get paid a small amount for contributing to the opinion poll results: sign up with YouGov

Whatever you think of David Davis’ decision to resign he has definitely kept the issue alive. The question “Is it okay to imprison innocent civilians?” would have become just another abuse of freedom had Davis not made his unusual decision.

And he’s highlighted another problem — the BBC and ITV who are supposed to be completely unbiased have continually described the situation as ‘bizarre’. As part of BBC dumbing down they have long sought to explain the implications of situations in news articles rather than just presenting the facts. But on this issue it is quite clear that they are going beyond simple explanation and clarification. If the situation is unusual (and it is) then that is fine, but to say that Davis may have “committed political suicide” or that “David Cameron… is furious” is to make leaps beyond the facts.

Let us be clear too: This is about locking away innocent people. There will be no trial, no evidence will be presented to the victim (of the state) and no news will be delivered to him. This man is losing all rights without being able to help show why he is innocent; and he shouldn’t need to do that.

European Constitution

The other key issue is the European Constitution aka the Lisbon Treaty. The Irish Prime Minister said the other day that the Lisbon Treaty is 95% the same as the Constitution. And the public in Ireland look like they have done for us what we were denied by our liar Prime Minister. Thank God.

Last night’s debate, and the brave Labour rebels in particular, showed that democrats from across the spectrum care passionately about rights and freedoms. MPs of all parties hold courage and conviction about these values and few more so than David Davis.

Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty