THE IMPORTANCE OF SOVEREIGNTY AND DEMOCRACY TO OUR NATION

Sovereignty and democracy are among the most precious attributes our Nation once had. Neither  attribute was a free gift, but In both cases were only obtained after struggle and sacrifice. Therefore, if sovereignty and democracy are important to you, then you need to be ready to defend both.

The defence of our rights and freedom is best achieved via the ballot and not the bullet. So don't be complacent, exercise your right and use your vote! 

Threats to our sovereignty and democracy 

War is clearly one way in which a foreign power will seek to impose its rule on others. A more subtle method is to seek the same end by the use of politics. Throughout history both methods have been employed by foreign powers, firstly against England and later, after the Act of Union, against the UK, in an attempt to impose foreign rule. 

​

A brief history of our sovereignty

During the Elizabethan era King Philip II of Spain sought, by political means, to acquire the English throne by proposing marriage to Queen Elizabeth I of England. When this did not come to pass he then tried to achieve the same end by warfare, and launched his Armada with intent to invade England. The Armada was defeated by the English navy and so that particular threat was ended.

Moving forward to Napoleonic times, and Britain was again under threat of invasion, this time the threat came from France. The perceived threat from 1803 to 1804 was considered to be so severe that new fortifications were built and existing fortifications were upgraded. Napoleon's rather complex plans to lure the British navy away from our shores and thereby be able to launch his invasion fleet did not bear fruit and so the immediate threat of invasion was averted, and with the eventual defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo the threat of invasion by France was ended.

On to 1914 and there was war against Germany, but as that war became bogged-down in trench warfare on the European mainland there was no threat of invasion. That war (WW1) ended in 1918, but 1939 saw the start of another war with Germany (WW2), this time the German forces moved swiftly through the European mainland right up to the coasts facing Britain. Before Germany could launch an invasion of Britain they firstly needed command of the air, and so Germany launched a massive and sustained attack by its air force in the belief that the out-numbered Royal Air Force would soon be destroyed. The British people refused to be cowed by the ferocity of the German attack, and the RAF fought with tenacity, determination, and great courage. Despite many personal sacrifices, and the losses sustained, the RAF won the Battle of Britain. This resulted in the German invasion barges which had been amassed ready for the invasion being removed, as was the threat of imminent invasion. 

The common theme that links the various attempts by foreign powers to impose their rule on the people of this country is that the British have, throughout history, been prepared to accept hardship and sacrifice rather than accept foreign rule.

​

A brief history of our democracy

The Magna Carta is usually taken as being the starting-point of our democracy, though others will point-out that the Saxons also had a form of democratic rule, but the Saxon's rule was ended by the Norman Conquest and so it is probably legitimate to view the Magna Carta as our democracy's start-point. The progress of democracy from its early beginnings to the present day has not been linear, there have been periods of time during which there was no progress and even times when there were set-backs.

King John signed Magna Carta in 1215 and it became law in 1279, but many will say that the aim of Magna Carta was largely concerned with the rights of the higher echelons of the nobility rather than the rights of the common man. 

Moving a long way forward in time we find some set-backs to, or pauses in the progress of democracy, for instance in the 19th Century Parliamentary seats could be bought and sold, votes could be swayed by bribes or threats, and voting rights were restricted to (largely) land and property owners. A positive move forward came in 1872 with the introduction of the secret ballot, then another move forward came in 1918 when all men (but not women) from the age of 21 were, with the some exceptions, eligible to vote and then in 1928 women won voting rights equal to that of men. A further extensions to voting rights came in 1976 when the voting age was reduced to 18, one often heard argument in favour of this was that if a person is considered to be old enough to fight for their country at the age of 18, then it is only right that they should also be able to vote on how the country is run. That argument seems reasonable, but it should be borne in mind that politicians don't necessarily always act for altruistic reasons, but sometimes press for a policy which they calculate will enhance their Party's electoral chances.

So, does all that has happened since 1279 mean that we finally have real democracy? No! Whilst we can vote a particular political Party into government for a maximum period of five years, we cannot (unless a general election or referendum is conceded) cause

the government to modify or abandon any policy upon which it has set its mind. Another hindrance to democracy is that some MPs take the stance that (as they would have it) we are a Parliamentary Democracy, by which they mean that we do not elect representatives, but give elected MPs 'Executive Powers', which in turn translates as once elected an MP can vote according to their own preference rather than vote in a manner which reflects the wishes of their constituents. Then there is the Whips Office which, among other duties, issues instructions (one, two, or three line whips) to their Party's MPs on which way to vote on particular policies. A three-line whip instructs MPs to vote according to the wishes of the leadership of their Party (with serious consequences for disobedience) rather than voting in accordance with the wishes of their constituents. So our democracy is a long way short of perfect. 

Recent and current threats 

During 1973 Edward Heath assured the British people that joining the EEC would involve no sacrifice of independence and sovereignty. But Heath (along with other senior politicians) knew full-well that the opposite was the case, but for what they termed 'Presentational reasons' deliberately misled the British people. Apart from lies and deceit there was also a flat refusal to allow the British people a referendum on joining the EEC, because it was a near certainty that the result would have been 'No'.

The Heath (Conservative) government was followed by a Labour government led by Harold Wilson after the first 1974 General Election, but Wilson's government was 17 seats short of an overall majority. Wilson called a General Election during the latter part of 1974 in which he played the 'Europe Card' saying that he would renegotiate our terms of entry and then hold a referendum on leaving or continuing our membership of the EEC, this election returned Wilson's government with an overall majority of 3 seats.

There then followed a very one-sided propaganda campaign aimed at persuading the electorate that our 'Renegotiated' terms meant that remaining in the EEC was our best option. The result of the referendum was about 2:1 in favour of continued membership. 

So in 1973 the UK was signed-up to the EEC (some will say illegally) and then later membership was approved (in the belief that the terms were now better) by a referendum.

The European Union was formed in 1993 and incorporated the EEC (now renamed the European Community) and the EC, now incorporated into the EU, ceased to exist. During our membership of what is currently termed the EU there have been many Treaties to which the UK has signed-up (without seeking the permission of the UK electorate) which has led us from membership of what we were led to believe was no more than a free-trade area to now being virtually governed by the unelected EU Commission. Make no mistake, the EU intends to continue to move toward a fully integrated single State incorporating all of the offices and mechanisms that a State requires, and all under one government. Within the UK two significant changes were made aimed at bringing the UK into closer alignment with the EU, our currency was changed from the £.s.d. system to the decimalised system and our weights and measures system was, in large part, changed from the British system to the European system, the permission of the British people regarding these changes was not sought because it was a virtual certainty that such permission would have been refused.   

In June 2016 the right of the UK electorate to decide how it wished to be governed was recognised (not willingly) and a referendum on our relationship with the EU was held. The accepted rules of the referendum were that it would be a UK-wide vote to be won by a simple majority, and the question posed would be an unambiguous option to either remain in, or leave the EU. The result was a vote to leave. It is important to note that there was no third option such as to partially leave, or for only parts of the UK to leave, so if democracy means anything then that decision has been made and the UK must leave the EU totally and completely. The only items for negotiation between the UK and the EU can only be on such things as our future trading arrangements with the EU, which must not under any circumstances or in any way dilute or alter the meaning of the word or decision to leave.

All those who adhere to the principles of democracy must continue to be very watchful because there are a number of current serious threats aimed at the result of the referendum. These attacks stem from individuals, organisations, and even political Parties. The common theme linking these attacks is a refusal to accept either the result of the recent referendum, or the fact that 'Leave' means exactly that. In each case the intent is to reverse the result of the referendum, failing that, to severely dilute the meaning of the word 'Leave' and have us still entangled in the EU web, or at least cause as much obstruction and delay to our final exit as they can.

If we support democracy, then we must respect those opinions that may be in opposition to ours, so in no way is it wrong for some to be of the opinion that we should remain, totally or in part, in the EU. Nor is there anything wrong in these persons and organisations mounting a fair and honest campaign aimed at persuading people to support that point of view.

However, it is anti-democratic to seek to subvert the democratically arrived at decision of the electorate by subterfuge and/or by sabotage - and that is exactly what some opponents of Brexit are trying to do.

​

The SNP are campaigning for Scotland to be exempted from the result of the referendum on the grounds that the majority of the Scottish electorate voted 'Remain' - this argument is spurious because the agreed rules were that the vote was to be UK-wide, and also because the total of the Scottish electorate is a small fraction of the total 'Leave' vote. The SNP are also linking Brexit with Scottish independence in that if the SNP does not get its way, then they will seek a second referendum on Scottish withdrawal from the UK (genuine Nationalists may object to their wishes being used as a pawn in the SNP's game!). The SNP, along with others, are also campaigning to have each devolved Assembly or government represented at the Brexit negotiations - this is a blatant attempt to have the aim of these negotiations watered-down to the point where the UK does not actually leave the EU.

The Liberal Democrats at first stated that their aim was to overturn the result of the EU referendum, but now they say that they respect that result but that the final Brexit deal should be subjected to a referendum in which the deal could be accepted or rejected by the electorate (the Green Party also supports this objective). At first glance this may seem democratic, but it is a trap because if the deal is rejected by the electorate, then (according to the Liberal Democrats), the 'Leave' vote is also rejected and the UK remains in the EU. And it is a safe bet that all those who oppose Brexit and support this subterfuge would use any means to persuade the electorate to reject the deal. It is therefore better to study the final deal, and if it is not in compliance with the meaning of 'Leave' to then pressurise the government to take such action as necessary in order to achieve compliance.

​

There are some Companies, individuals and some MPs (even within the Conservative Party) who also wish to thwart the democratic wish of the electorate. Companies that use threats in order to subvert the democratic process for their own commercial gain must be left in no doubt that such threats will be ignored, because it has to be borne in mind that those companies that threaten to relocate because of Brexit, could also relocate at any time and for some other commercial reason. Individuals (possibly funded by hidden interests) who seek to delay or obstruct Brexit can either be ignored or challenged to show why their minority interest should over-rule the majority. Political Parties and individual MPs who act undemocratically should bear in mind that their actions could well result in a penalty at the ballot box.

​

So, take nothing at face value, look for any hidden agenda, remember that the EU Single Market is the bait within the trap and that good trade deals are available outside of the EU. So think about the kind of country and political system within which you wish to live, and use your vote accordingly.

​

                                       Click to go to Blog Page

​

​

​

​