What may be termed a ‘eulogy’ has appeared in the Daily Telegraph on the subject of Margaret Thatcher; one penned by José María Aznar, who was Spanish prime minister from 1996 to 2004. In what follows it is appreciated that I may be ‘treading on dangerous ground’ where those who idolised her are concerned. However:

If she strongly believed that freedom only comes with corresponding responsibility,, a notion which underpinned the principles of empowerment of the individual and reduction of the role of government. then why did she not champion the idea of direct democracy?

If Margaret Thatcher believed, as she so obviously did, in the sovereignty of parliament, then why did she sign the European Single Act? We should remember that the Single European Act was the first major revision of the 1957 Treaty of Rome. The Act set the European Community an objective of establishing a single market by 31 December 1992 and, more importantly, codified European Political Cooperation. It was signed at Luxembourg on 17 February 1986, and at The Hague on 28 February 1986. It came into effect on 1 July 1987, under the Delors Commission.

Just asking, as is my wont.

Let us now turn to an article by Daniel Hannan, again appearing in the Daily Telegraph, in which the great man pontificates on the subject of Magna Carta.

Hannan maintains that in placing the law above the government, it established, in a written, contractual form, the precept that was to lift us above the run of nations. In which case, how come a written contractual form has been ignored and changed by governments, thus reducing us to the ‘run of nations’? He also states that in creating an enforcement mechanism, it ensured that representative government was not a mechanism for the majority to override the minority, but a guarantor of freedom. No but it sure became, through representative democracy, an enforcement mechanism by which the minority were able to override the majority and who thus had their ‘freedom’ controlled.

Hannan castigates Owen Jones for maintaining that the Tory view of history is founded on the myth of a benevolent elite granting carefully managed change out of goodwill and generosity – but hang on, is that not a myth of which all governments are guilty, especially in their faux attempts to devolve power to the people?

Perhaps Hannan needs reminding that we did not get rid of the divine rights of kings only to bow down to the divine rights of a political class – you listening also, Maggietollah? He may well also laud Cameron for a good speech, without notes, about how the true test of the rule of law was how often a government was defeated in court – but no doubt forgot to mention that when government was defeated by law, it promptly passed another law to close the loophole it forgot to close in the first place – at least it did when it had the power to so do.



And Hannan, along with other present-day politicians, deign to lecture us about democracy?

.