The ‘news du jour’ is, undoubtedly, the European Union, the UK’s membership thereof, of which much is written and said about democracy; and the forthcoming referendum.

Consequently, an article which appeared under the name of Quentin Letts appears to have passed with little, if any, comment. Being Letts, it was written with a tad of ‘tongue in cheek’; but at the same time contained pertinent points where democracy is concerned.

When snakes shed their skins they tend to do a lot of forked-tongue waving. They wriggle. During that awkward between-skins period they are vulnerable to attack, so may hide behind stones. The spectacle of a skin-shedding, though a marvel of nature, can be slightly disgusting. No doubt a snake would say ‘it’s just a packaging issue, old boy’.

Politicians also shed their skins – principles, to use an old-fashioned word. Now that really IS a revolting business. Am I calling politicians snakes? Oh dear.

One who is currently easing himself out of his old pelt with a shoulder-shimmy here, a greasy word or two there, is Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond. He used to be a prominent Eurosceptic (indeed, his scepticism was one of the reasons he was appointed). Now he is mid-restyle. Having sensed that his own political survival may be in peril unless he sucks up to 10 Downing Street, he is turning himself into a Europhile.

The article continues:

David Nuttall (Con, Bury N), a persistent and bold critic of Brussels, said ‘many people are suspicious of the seriousness of the renegotiation’. Was it not a bit limp of the PM to make ‘less red tape’ one of his demands when even the most ardent Europhiles agree that is needed?

Mr Hammond dipped his ladle into a soup of insincerity and claimed that ‘we’re looking for an institutional restructuring’. He did so without warmth towards Mr Nuttall, whose views he might once have shared. But that was back in the days when he was making his political fortune.

Now that he is atop the pile, a member of the limousine set, he need not bother. Foreign Secretary! It practically guarantees this stupendous dullard a pulpit for life.

For those interested the Hansard record is here and the video here. These two links are provided as Letts maintains: The Hammond of old is quickly being replaced by a Hammond who gives Europe the benefit of the doubt, a Hammond who is striving to keep Britain IN the European Union, a Hammond who with a superior lifting of the eyebrows, a tone of settled worldliness, asserts that he finds EU-sceptic position options to be unappealing. ‘Doesn’t look like a good plan to me,’ he murmured yesterday, perhaps a mite too ostentatiously, after hearing someone mention Norway’s position outside the EU. Equating Britain to Norway is a worn Europhile tactic. Having listened to the exchanges I was unable to hear the ‘aside’ to which Letts refers – but then old age and hard of hearing tend to go together.

This article ‘hits the nail on the head’ for those of us who believe we have no democracy per se. In this article we have questions raised about politicians more interested in their careers, their ‘seat sinecure’, coupled with the question of whether their views mirror those they are meant to represent. Here it is worth noting an article I wrote on my previous blog on the subject of ‘democracy’ and in which I quoted the views of A.V. Dicey – from which:

Yet A.V. Dicey held that there was an inherent weakness in the British system of representative democracy and its government. In a letter to James Bryce on 23rd March 1891 (source: Bryce Papers, Bodleian Library MS 3 fo.83.) he writes:

“the possibility….which no-one can dispute of a fundamental change passing into law which the mass of the nation do not desire.”

In effect what Dicey was alluding to was the fact that the foundation of representational democracy was, to use the vernacular, shot to hell; and by inference that it was not Parliament, but the people, who were sovereign.

Yes, I come back to the aims of The Harrogate Agenda (THA) because were that to be the norm MPs such as Philip Hamond would no longer be able to enjoy their exalted position, nor have a ‘job for life’. When one recalls this question from Letts: What do the members in Mr Hammond’s Runnymede & Weybridge Tory association think of his new fondness for Brussels? the response, methinks, would be: not much.

In particular, in blogs, a great deal is written about ‘democracy’ and Leave_HQ is no exception. We all are only too aware the European Union lacks democracy, but then so does our current system of representative democracy. If we are to win the forthcoming referendum I have to repeat an oft unanswered question – should we not be concentrating on the ‘root cause’ of our lack of democracy?

An interesting point arises from FlexCit in that it is stated that there is little point in recovering powers from the EU, only to hand them back to the same institutions that gave them away in the first place. Time and time again, those writing and speaking for an exit from the clutches of the European Union mention ‘democracy’ and the lack thereof. So, to repeat the oft-asked question, why is THA stage 6 of 6?

How often must the point be made that the electorate repeatedly complain that however they vote nothing changes? So, once again, why is THA stage 6 of 6? Does not logic dictate that were a concerted attempt to publicise THA carried out, then the forthcoming referendum would be a ‘slam-dunk’?

Undoubtedly there are some MPs who do care about the plight of their constituents, but in attempting to solve those problems they are constrained by party policy, maintaining their careers, a lack of knowledge as to the cause of said complaints and their unwillingness to acknowledge that there is little they can do in view of the contraints – ie the foregoing – under which they labour.

When the media continue to write about trivia, which has no bearing on what is important; when bloggers seem unable to concentrate on what is important because they, too, are in their own little ‘bubble’; what hope is there for the rest of us with questions that do not get answered? What hope is there for those of us who do care about democracy and who wish to control their own lives; and have a voice in any future for our nation?

Just asking…………………..