Now you see it, now you don't

2 March 2018 – I’ve just now listened to Prime Minister Theresa May addressing the great and the good of the City of London – and the world’s media - in the Mansion House. The House is the official residence of the Lord Mayor of London, currently Charles Bowman, who also heads the City of London Corporation. He is a senior partner in PwC - Pricewaterhouse Coopers, and a magistrate. (Not to be confused with the Mayor of London, Sadiq Kahn, who once was a Labour Party MP; the first Asian and first Muslim to attend Cabinet; and a lawyer.)

The subject of Mrs May’s speech: The hard facts about Brexit. I listened closely. She identified five tests.

“First, the agreement we reach with the EU must respect the referendum.

Second, the new agreement we reach with the EU must endure.

Third, it must protect people's jobs and security.

Fourth, it must be consistent with the kind of country we want to be as we leave: a modern, open, outward-looking, tolerant, European democracy.

And fifth, in doing all of these things, it must strengthen our union of nations (the UK) and our union of people.” Big asks, I thought.

Or, put another way, all those things that are being developed within EU and elsewhere while the British public are all the time encouraged to reflect only on border controls, who makes the laws, who interprets the laws, which tariff is fair, who has right of abode, and so on. All important issues but not what this tussle is really about. I call it smoke-and-mirrors theatre in which the conjuror relies upon distraction and illusion to obtain the result he/she wants. But that’s OK. Many of us will be able to be happy-clappy with the material she supplied, won’t we? And we could tell there was nothing up her sleeve even though I heard her say ‘Parliament is sovereign’ – which it is not.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

Whaddya think you do? Hey!
Why you looka so sad?
Itsa not so bad.
Itsa nice-a place.
Ah, shaddap-a you face

I cannot imagine why that 1980s song came to mind this weekend. I don’t suppose it had anything to do with Italian general elections or anything, hey! Could it? Maybe it was more to do with Theresa May’s speech about Brexit negotiations. You remember. The one you read a second ago when she spelt out her negotiating objectives. I mean, the one just detailed above!

Do you remember President Trump saying when he took office that he wanted to ‘drain the swamp’? Many people took that to mean he wanted to effect changes in and around political Washington D.C., with a passing nod to the idea that the place is built on a swamp. All I could bring to mind was the more complete observation that: “When you are up to your armpits in alligators, it is often difficult to remember that your initial objective was to drain the swamp.”

Back now to Theresa May. She and her civil servants have spent so much time defining the five tests that they are in imminent danger of overlooking the initial objective – that is, they are up to their armpits in alligators and she seems dangerously close to overlooking the initial test, which is to respect the referendum.

It isn’t about jobs;

It isn’t about benefits;

It isn’t even about immigration.

IT’S ABOUT WHO GOVERNS BRITAIN

 

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

AND FINALLY: Let’s go back to the notion that Parliament is sovereign. To that I ask the question: “Whence cometh its sovereignty?” We could never claim that parliament has any kind of God-given rights, could we? But somebody had sovereignty for Parliament to believe it had acquired it.

For that matter, where does the money come from that Parliament wants to spend with never ending determination, not including borrowings at interest from the world’s bankers? Somebody has the money because Parliament hasn't any of its own.

For whom does Parliament exist? Does it exist for the benefit of those who sit on the benches in the Palace of Westminster? Or for those who sit out of sight behind them, called civil servants or worse, the City Remembrancer, who sits immediately behind Mr Speaker, John Bercow? He is there to keep a watchful eye and a listening ear on the discussions of interest to the City of London Corporation. 

Or does Parliament exist for the benefit of We, the people?  I believe it should - but does it? Sometimes that is just too challenging a question to ask.

 

The Remembrancer is the only non-MP or civil servant with a seat in the House of Lords and House of Commons. His job dates back to Henry VIII. He has a budget of £5.3million, a staff bill of £500,000 – including a team of six lawyers – and he represents City of London interests and bankers’ interests at the heart of our supposed democracy.  The incumbent today is Paul Double, a former barrister.

 

MPs on the other hand represent their own political party first and foremost.  Keep in mind that ‘the party’ exists only for the furtherance of the Party. The Party chooses its candidates for election; the Party defines the Party Manifesto; the Party chooses its leader and, ultimately, the Prime Minister (not the Queen, even when she is obliged to refer to ‘my government’); the party ‘whips’ those who would break ranks when push comes to shove. We, the people, are granted an illusion that we have the right to choose our constituency MP, but it is just that, an illusion. In America it is known as Tweedism. As in:

So it seems that everyone is represented at Westminster except We, the people, and new parties spring up around us to perpetuate the lie.

Do you believe that Parliament is sovereign?  Do you still think you live in a democracy?  You might think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

* * * * *

Oh, by the way. 

Suffrage 

(someone else allowing you to vote)

isn’t evidence of democracy.

* * * * *

NB: It has been brought to my attention that 'comments' seem not to be enabled despite the fact that reader comments are allowed, according to the settings.

I would like to make clear that UKIP does not conform to the practices of other political parties insofar as 'whipping' (also known as bullying) is concerned. (MD)