Showing posts with label House of Lords. Show all posts
Showing posts with label House of Lords. Show all posts

Thursday, 7 June 2018

The contrasting fates of Alan Turing and the traitor Lord Sempill


Most British people have heard of Alan Turing. You would have to have studiously avoided learning about the the history of Second World War, computer science, code breaking and gay rights issues in order to have remained ignorant of one of the greatest mathematical minds of the 20th Century and his extraordinary contribution to the British war effort. Fewer people have heard of William Forbes-Sempill, 19th Lord Sempill, yet his influence on the British war effort was no less dramatic.

Alan Turing was born in London to Julius Mathison Turing, a recently returned Indian civil servant and Ethel Sara Stoney, the daughter of a noted railway engineer. As a child he attended private schools, eventually earning a place at Cambridge University where he graduated with a first class honours degree in Mathematics. Turing managed to thrive at establishment institutions like Sherbourne and Cambridge University because of his intelligence, however he was treated with suspicion by the establishment elite due to his non-aristocratic background, eccentric nature, intimidating genius and his homosexual tendencies.

After obtaining a PhD from the prestigious Princeton University in New Jersey he returned to the UK to work with the secret Government Code and Cypher School (GCCS) intelligence service where he concentrated on cryptanalysis of the German Enigma code

During the Second World War Turing was an important figure at the Bletchley Park codebreaking facility where he made many invaluable contributions to the deciphering of complex German military codes. He was described by fellow codebreaker Asa Briggs "the genius" that Bletchley Park needed.

It has been estimated that the work of Turing and his colleagues at Bletchley Park shortened the war by between two and four years, and that without their contributions the outcome of the war would have been uncertain. Turing didn't only make a significant contribution to the British war effort, he also did pioneering work in computing and is widely considered to be the father of computer science and artificial intelligence.

William Forbes-Sempill was the Eton educated son of John Forbes-Sempill, 9th Baronet of Craigievar and hereditary member of the House of Lords

During the First World War the younger Sempill served as a pilot with the Royal Flying Corps and then with the Royal Navy Air Service. He was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for his service during the war.


Captain Sempill showing a Gloster Sparrowhawk
to Admiral Togo Heihachiro, in 1921.
In the aftermath of the war he led a British deputation to Japan where he assisted the Japanese navy in setting up an airforce base and establishing their aircraft carrier fleet. Sempill received a personal letter from the Japanese Prime Minister Tomosaburo Kato thanking him for his work with the Japanese navy, in which his contribution was described as "almost epoch-making" and he later received Japan's highest honour, the Order of the Rising Sun, for his "especially meritorious military service".

After American concerns were raised about the growing naval strength of the Japanese, Sempill's mission in Japan was officially discontinued. However Sempill carried on providing support to the Japanese by passing classified military and technical information to Japanese Naval attache in London, Captain Teijiro Toyoda. 

In 1925 he was questioned about his distribution of official secrets, but for undisclosed reasons he was never prosecuted under the official secrets act.

By the 1930s Sempill was an active member of several far-right, fascist and Anti-Semitic organisations including the Anglo-German Fellowship, The Link and Archibald Ramsay's The Right Club, (which was a secretive organisation with the aim of ridding the Tory party of Jews). Sempill was far from the only member of the British establishment elite to embrace the fascist ideology. The founder of the British Union of Fascists was Sir Oswald Mosley, 6th Baronet, of Ancoats, whose fascist activities received a lot of positive press from the 1st Viscount Rothsmere's Daily Mail newspaper. 

The British Union of Fascists counted dozens of Knights, Earls, Dukes, Barons, Lords, Ladies and Viscounts amongst its members. The Royal family, who were at the very epicentre centre of this orgy of hereditary entitlement and establishment ennoblement, also had a number of keen fascists, Edward VIII maintained notoriously close relations with Nazi Germany, causing their arms industry minister Albert Speer to lament that "I am certain that through him, permanent friendly relations could have been achieved. If he had stayed, everything would have been different. His abdication was a severe loss for us.". The Queen mother famously stated that she would have been happy for the Nazis to invade the UK, as long as they kept the Royal family, and the Royal adults famously taught the infant Elizabeth to do Nazi salutes in the gardens of Balmoral castle.

Most of the intelligence files on Sempill's activities during the 1930s and 1940s mysteriously "disappeared" from the national archive, however it is known that he continued to receive regular payments from the Japanese government owned Mitsubishi Corporation, and entertained several high ranking Nazis throughout the period.

Despite his track record of passing classified information to foreign powers and his collusion with fascists, Sempill was assigned to the Admiralty in 1939 on the outbreak of war with Nazi Germany. 

Sempill's position allowed him access to highly sensitive information about the latest British military hardware and official secrets. In June 1940 MI5 discovered that Sempill was still receiving payments from Mitsubishi, and an investigation revealed that he was almost certainly passing secret information to the Japanese. However the Attorney General (Lord Donald Somervell, Baron Somervell of Harrow) advised against prosecution, and Sempill was allowed to keep his position in the Admiralty and his access to sensitive information. 

In 1941 Sempill personally intervened to secure the release of the Japanese ambassador Makahara, who had been arrested under suspicion of spying.

Six months after the August 1941 Newfoundland Conference meeting between British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and the U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Japanese Embassy in London sent detailed notes about the meeting back to Tokyo. These encrypted notes were intercepted and decoded at Bletchley Park and the transcript was passed to Churchill, who noted that they were "very accurate", Three months later, further notes on Churchill's personal agenda and inner circle were intercepted on their way from Japanese Embassy in London to Tokyo. An investigation by Anthony Eden concluded that only two men could have created the notes: Commander McGrath or Lord Sempill.


The British Prime Minister Winston Churchill intervened
to protect Lord Sempill despite a mountain of
 evidence the he'd been spying for the Japanese.
On 9 October 1941 Churchill gave instructions to "clear him out while time remains". The following week the Admiralty confronted Sempill and told him he could either resign or be fired. Sempill protested, and Churchill intervened to say "I had not contemplated Lord Sempill being required to resign his commission, but only to be employed elsewhere in the Admiralty". Sempill was then shifted to a post in northern Scotland, however he still continued to assist the Japanese. 

In Early December a raid on his office found him in possession of classified documents that he had been instructed to return months previously. Then around a week later he was caught making phone calls to the Japanese (more than a week after the Japanese invasion of British Malaya and their attack on Pearl Harbour). Sempill was made to resign, but he was never prosecuted for his treasonous relationship with the Japanese that did so much to help them to develop the technology they used to kill thousands of British and American servicemen during the Pacific War.

Sempill's activities were never made public during his lifetime and he continued to live the privileged life of establishment nobility, keeping his position in the House of Lords that he had inherited from his father, and even receiving the chairmanships of the Institute of Advanced Motorists and the British Gliding Association.

Sempill died peacefully in 1956 having never faced punishment or public criticism for his crimes. His hereditary seat in the Lords passed to his daughter Ann, and his Baronetry to his younger brother Ewan. It was only in 2002 that the scale of his treachery and his fascist and Anti-Semitic tendencies came to light after classified documents about his activities were finally released into the public domain.


All of the vital codebreaking activities that took place at Bletchley Park
remained shrouded in secrecy until well into the 1970s.
Returning to Alan Turing; he had a much harder time after the end of the war. All of his codebreaking work was classified by the government so he could never talk about his extraordinary contribution to the war effort.

Turing continued his work with computers, famously devising the Turing Test as a means of determining whether a computer has achieved artificial intelligence, a test that remains an essential concept in the philosophy of artificial intelligence. He also developed the LU Decomposition method (complex algebra) and did pioneering work in the field of morphogenesis, (which is the study of how biological organisms develop their shape).


In 1952 Turing was charged with the "crime" of Gross Indecency after admitting to having had a homosexual relationship with a man who later robbed his house. He was found guilty and given the choice of imprisonment or chemical castration. 

This conviction meant that his security clearance was revoked, which meant that he was barred from continuing his cryptographic work with the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ).

Turing chose to be chemically castrated rather than face imprisonment.


On the 8th of June 1954 Turing was found dead by his cleaner. A post mortem examination determined that the cause of death was cyanide poisoning, however no forensic examination of the property took place, and his death was officially attributed to suicide.

Many people, including his mother, refused to accept the suicide verdict. The ambiguous circumstances of his death and the lack of a thorough investigation mean that nobody will ever know whether his death was intentional suicide, accidental poisoning, or the result of foul play.


Turing's brilliance was not recognised until years after his death. In 1966 the Turing Award was established to for technical contributions to the computing community. It is widely considered to be the computing world's highest honour, equivalent to a Nobel Prize in computing. It took until 2009 for the British establishment to make an official public apology, which was made by Prime Minister Gordon Brown on behalf of the British government for the way in which Turing was treated after the war.

The similarity between the two men lies in the way the war conduct of both of them remained shrouded in secrecy until long after their deaths. Sempill was never exposed as the traitor he was, and it seems that somebody intervened to ensure that many presumably incriminating files from the 1930s and 1940s "disappeared", never to reach the public domain at all. Meanwhile, all the hugely important work undertaken at Bletchley Park remained secret until the 1970s, meaning that Turing's outstanding contribution to the war effort was not recognised until long after his death.


In the UK, living in a castle like this and an Eton education 
seems to provide immunity from prosecution for treason.
Had the public been allowed to know about the codebreaking work at Bletchley Park, Winston Churcill's famous speech about the valiant fighter pilots during the Battle of Britain could easily have been made about the codebreakers too; "never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few".

What is remarkable about the contrasting fates of these two men is the way that members of the British establishment (including the Prime Minister and the Attorney General) repeatedly intervened to protect one of their own, despite his fascist tendencies and decades of treasonous behavior, whilst the establishment people Turing had known and associated with during his time at Cambridge University and at Bletchley Park refused to intervene to help him when criminal charges were brought against him for the trivial offence of engaging in homosexual acts, despite his outstanding contribution to the war effort.

It seems amazing that British nobility, including the Prime Minister, would repeatedly intervene to ensure that another member of their privileged class avoided prosecution for the incredibly serious crime of passing official secrets to foreign powers at a time of war, yet wouldn't do anything to lean on prosecutors to drop the charges against a war hero and genius who happened to have been born into the "lower social orders".

The British nobility turned a blind eye the most heinous of crimes (espionage, treason, fraternising with the enemy, Anti-Semitism)  because it was one of their own class doing it, yet they refused to intervene to prevent a true war hero from suffering homosexual prosecution and chemical castration, simply because he was not one of the upper classes.

This disparity in the way these two men were treated illustrates the classism that is still rampant in Britain today.

If you're one of the establishment elitists you can do pretty much anything without fear of criticism or punishment from your fellow elitists who maintain an enormously disproportionate influence over the criminal justice system, the political system, and the media.

However if you're from non-elitist stock, woe betide you if you ever dare to step out of line, because the establishment elitists will make you suffer for it.

It's one set of rules for the establishment class, and another much harsher and more unforgiving set of rules for the rest of us. It's the way it's always been, and it's the way it will continue to be until something is done to confront the absolute scourge of classism in Britain.



 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.



Monday, 22 January 2018

Beware of shady hard-right pro-privatisation extremists posing as reliable experts


On January 21st 2018 the Sunday Times ran a scaremongering story claiming that Jeremy Corbyn's renationalisation plans would be a "£176 billion gamble".

On further investigation the Centre for Policy Studies report that this "£176 billion gamble" headline is derived from was written by a former adviser to the Tory MP Amber Rudd and the unelected Tory lord Nigel Lawson called Daniel Mahoney


The Sunday Times conveniently forget to mention that the author of the report they've churnalised into an anti-Corbyn hatchet job is an outright Tory!

Aside from uncritical appraisals of his "report" in numerous right-wing newspapers, Mahoney was also invited onto the BBC to opine about why the Carillion collapse isn't a demonstration of the failure of the hard-right privatisation and outsourcing agenda, without them even bothering to explain that he's a Tory. Neither did they identify his Tory party links when they quoted his objections to Labour's plan to bring hospital cleaning services back into public hands.

Then there's the fact that the Sunday Times article tried to dress the Centre For Policy Studies up as some kind of neutral and impartial "think tank" when in fact they're undeniably a shady hard-right pressure group that is completely riddled with Tory politicians and Tory party donors (see image).



Far from being the kind of organisation to be quoted extensively by the BBC and the mainstream press as if they're a reliable and impartial research organisation, this is a hard-right pressure group that reads like a who's who of the pro-privatisation lobby.

The 16 person board of directors includes eleven out-and-out Tories. The other five include a fanatically right-wing academic, the chairman of HSBC bank, the editor of the hard-right Spectator magazine, the wife of the Daily Mail owner, and the chairman of the Times Newspaper Group.

It's interesting that the Sunday Times omitted the fact that the Centre for Policy Studies is a hard-right pro-Tory, pro-privatisation pressure group. Given that their chairman is actually a member of it, it's hardly likely that they didn't know exactly what it was when they decided to churnalise it's "report" into headlines.


Aside from being absolutely riddled with out-and-out Tories and representatives of the right-wing press, the Centre For Policy Studies has also been given the lowest possible ranking for opacity by Who Funds You? because they release no information whatever about where any of their donations come from.

So the next time you see a newspaper citing the Centre for Political Studies, remember that they're an incredibly shady hard-right pro-privatisation propaganda unit staffed almost entirely by Tories and people with links to the hard-right press.



 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.




OR

Credit to The London Economic for exposing the people behind this shady hard-right "think tank" before I did. Check them out and give them a follow (Website / Facebook / Twitter)

Tuesday, 17 October 2017

The 15 year peerage proposal is an absolute farce


Instead of putting forward proposals to democratise the bloated unelected House of Lords, a Westminster political committee is proposing a "fix" that would make the anti-democratic nature of the House of Lords even worse than it is already.

The way it works now is that (aside from 26 unelected bishops and 92 mainly Tory hereditary peers) all of the members of the House of Lords have been undemocratically appointed by the Prime Minister of the day.


What the House of Lords Committee is suggesting is that instead of the Prime Minister of the day having the power to appoint peers for life, they should appoint them to time-limited peerages of no longer than 15 years.

Several Prime Ministers over the years have abused their positions by stuffing the House of Lords with their own cronies and yes men. But between 2010 and 2016 David Cameron took Lords-stuffing to a new extreme, adding more new unelected peers per year than any other Prime Minister in history, including life-long peerages for over a dozen mega-rich Tory donors who had pumped £millions into Tory party coffers before their ennoblements.

Thanks to David Cameron's stuffing of the Lords it's now swelled to over 800 members, making it the second largest legislative assembly in the world (behind the Chinese parliament).

Instead of putting forward proposals to reduce the size of the House of Lords, and democratise it in an innovative way that preserves the undoubted expertise of many of the members, the Westminster establishment club are pushing a "fix" that would make the anti-democratic nature of the House of Lords even worse.

Just imagine if peerages had been limited to 15 years for the last few decades. Imagine what the composition of the House of Lords would have ended up looking like after the 18 year Tory rule between 1979-1997. Every single sitting peer would have been hand-picked by either Margaret Thatcher or John Major! It would have ended up as nothing more than a glorified, and ridiculously over-paid rubber-stamping club.

Imagine the composition of the House of Lords after the 13 year New Labour rule from 1997-2010. After an initial period of the Tory dominated Lords cynically blocking absolutely everything the Labour government tried to achieve, after 10 years and beyond the majority of the Tory peerages from the previous regime would have expired, leaving a House of Lords almost exclusively handpicked by either Tony Blair or Gordon Brown. Another glorified rubber-stamping club.

Now consider the current political situation had the 15 year rule been in force. After seven and a half years of Tory rule the balance of the House of Lords would be rapidly swinging back to the Tories, just at a time when the country most needs the upper chamber to hold the shambolic, divided and increasingly authoritarian minority Tory government to account.

The introduction of a 15 year limitation on peerages that continue to be unelected is exactly the kind of ill-conceived and profoundly anti-democratic "fix" you'd expect from a Westminster establishment club who are absolutely desperate to avoid and kind of genuine democratisation or modernisation of the political system they've reaped the personal benefits of for decades.

The Westminster elitists still want the House of Lords to be stuffed full of hand-picked political yes men like themselves, but they now want them appointed with an automatic expiry date so that they can be weeded out before they get too old to soften their party political allegiances, to be replaced regularly with new crops of up-to-date yes men who are fully on message about the current government's agenda.

The new 15 year rule will obviously only be applied to newly appointed members of the House of Lords, because if it's applied retroactively, 10 of the 13 unelected peers to have cobbled together this proposal would have to resign immediately having already served way beyond 15 years, and two others who were appointed in 2004 would have to retire within two years, leaving just one of them in the job!

Yes, these establishment insiders, most of whom have sat in the unelected House of Lords for over two decades (Lord Strathclyde has been there since 1985!) are proposing a new set of rules to prevent younger generations from milking the system in the way they have themselves, but they have no intention of resigning their own positions to comply with the rules they're planning to force onto others.

The hypocrisy of these unelected establishment insiders is astounding, but unsurprising. They want to keep their own unelected privileges, but restrict the unelected privileges of future generations in order to keep them as subservient to the Westminster elitist club as possible, whilst vehemently opposing the concepts of democratisation and modernisation of the anti-democratic system that has rewarded them with decades of unelected power and influence.

The anti-democratic House of Lords is bad enough as it is, but the idea of automatically weeding future unelected peers out in order to turn the upper house into a glorified rubber-stamping club is somehow even worse than just leaving it in the mess it's in!

The bloated and anti-democratic state of the unelected House of Lords is actually an ideal opportunity to develop a completely new innovative kind of elected upper legislative chamber that is fit for the 21st Century. However, leaving the job of reform to the unelected Lords themselves is absolutely futile because, as is always the case, the Westminster establishment club would obviously prefer to just use the current mess to rig the system even more to their own advantage, rather than proposing any kind of genuinely progressive or democratic reform to their beloved system.


 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.




OR

Wednesday, 3 May 2017

The rogue bank, the failing company and the Tory Party donations


In October 2008, at the very height of the global financial sector insolvency crisis, HSBC made a very strange decision: They made a massive £214.2 million loan to a struggling company called IPGL.

To get an idea of what was more normal practice for banks during the insolvency crisis and the post-crisis recession, consider the behaviour of the (majority taxpayer-owned) bank RBS which deliberately withdrew loans or hiked repayment terms in order to drive thousands of British companies into financial difficulties, and then used their Global Restructuring Group to close down the businesses and asset strip them for their own profits.

The RBS Global Restructuring Group destroyed 12,000 businesses in this way in what executives referred to in leaked emails as "the dash for cash". After the scandal was exposed by the hard work of people like Neil Mitchell they've now had to set aside a £400 million slush fund to compensate some of their victims.

Interestingly HSBC took a very different attitude towards the struggling and massively indebted IPGL, which was being run at huge losses by the then Tory party chairman and massive Tory party donor Michael Spencer. Instead of attempting to shut it down and asset strip it, they pumped a massive £214.2 million loan into it at a time when getting loans out of a bank was like getting blood out of a stone.

Spencer then funnelled over four million in donations to the Tory party via IPLG including over £1 million for their 2010 general election fighting fund. IPLG donations also covered the cost of flying David Cameron, George Osborne and others to the Davos World Economic Forum just months before the 2010 General Election.

If HSBC propped up a failing business and that business then went on to pump millions into the Tory party to help them win the 2010 General Election, it's easy to see how people might conclude that the failing business was used by HSBC to launder money into political donations.

HSBC, the Tory party, George Osborne's office and IPGL were contacted by the investigative journalists who broke this story and offered the chance to comment. They all declined.


While this HSBC-IPGL-Tory party business was going on HSBC were also laundering hundreds of millions of pounds in drug money for Mexican drug cartels and funds for terrorist organisations.

After the Tories came to power in 2010 the conduct of George Osborne and David Cameron clearly continued to favour HSBC and Michael Spencer's business interests. Their attempted favours towards Spencer continued even after their fall from grace over the spectacular failure of their EU referendum gamble in June 2016.
  • In March 2012 Spencer was named by the disgraced former Tory party co-treasurer Peter Cruddas as one of the millionaires to have benefited from the "cash for access scandal".
  • Although Spencer didn't make it into the unelected House of Lords in David Cameron's resignation honours list Camilla Cavendish (the former Times editor who spiked the HSBC fraud story) did.
The £214 million HSBC loan to the failing IPGL and their subsequent donations to the Tory party have now been referred to the Electoral Commission by the SNP's Roger Mullin, who is calling for an immediate investigation. The Labour MP John Mann has called for a public inquiry into what he called "the biggest party donor scandal ever".

Coverup/whitewash?



The French libertarian philosopher and economist Frédéric Bastiat once wrote that "when plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it", which stands as true today as when he wrote it in the 1840s.

There are so many revolving doors between Westminster politics, the financial system, the financial regulators and the media that it seems unlikely anyone will ever be properly held to account.

The Canary and Move Your Money broke this story on April 28th, but 5 days later the mainstream media has yet to move on it, preferring instead to focus the public attention on "vital" issues like the Shadow Home Secretary getting her figures muddled up in a radio interview and then subsequently correcting them.

The whole thing reeks of corruption, but we all know by now how these things tend to play out. Even if the story does eventually get some limited mainstream media coverage it'll doubtlessly all be brushed under the carpet again, and if anyone ever does end up getting the chop for it, it'll almost certainly be some lowly minion who gets fed to the wolves, not any of the big players.

But at least you know some of the murky details now.

Credits

The investigative work into the HSBC-IPGL-Tory party money flow was done by Fionn Travers-Smith of Move Your Money. The story was publicised by Steve Topple of The Canary.

The SNP's Roger Mullin deserves credit for publicly raising this issue with the Electoral Commission and Labour's John Mann deserves some too for calling for a public inquiry.

Follow them here:

Fionn Travers-Smith (Twitter)
Move Your Money (Twitter/Facebook)
Steve Topple (Twitter)
The Canary (Twitter/Facebook)
Roger Mullin (Twitter)

John Mann (Twitter)

You should also follow the HSBC whistleblower Nicholas Wilson (Twitter) for more corruption coverage.

 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.




OR

Thursday, 30 March 2017

The Great Repeal Bill is clearly more undemocratic than the EU


One of the main non-immigration related arguments that Brexiters used before the referendum was the complaint that the EU is supposedly undemocratic, but within the space of a year this faux concern about democracy has been proven false time and again.

The first thing to point out is that the "undemocratic EU" argument was always incredibly hypocritical coming from a country with the largest unelected legislative chamber in the entire world, an unelected head of state, a profoundly undemocratic (and hopelessly discredited) honours system, an undemocratic central bank, and a hopelessly outdated profoundly unrepresentative voting system.

Of course the EU has democratic deficits (an undemocratic central bank like the UK, loads of appointed political figures that pretty much nobody has ever heard of, contempt for participatory democracy ...) but it's clearly way more democratic that the anachronistic shambles in Westminster.

Immediately after Brexit the gaping hypocrisy of the "undemocratic EU" argument was revealed when the Tory party appointed Theresa May as their leader, and as Prime Minister of the UK by default, by pressurising her opponent to quit the leadership contest before it could even be put to a vote of Tory party members. The Tories are clearly so afraid of democracy they don't even allow their own party members to have a say on who their leader is!

Another glaring display of contempt for democracy came when Brexiters howled with outrage after three High Court judges ruled that parliament is sovereign and that Theresa May couldn't just make up laws as she goes along like a dictator would. "Enemies of the People" shrieked the Brexiters at the judges who had dared to rule that parliamentary democracy is sovereign, not our unelected Prime Minister.

On the day after Theresa May submitted her appalling Article 50 letter the Tories launched an astonishing assault on the concept of parliamentary democracy called "The Great Repeal Act" which is designed to allow Tory ministers to rewrite thousands of UK laws with absolutely no democratic scrutiny whatever.

"Trust me, I know what I'm doing"
Of course the Brexiters who claimed to care so strongly and so deeply about democracy last year when they had a referendum to win are now completely silent about this latest astounding anti-democratic power grab by the Tory party.

The Brexit minister David Davis' response to criticism that the Great Repeal Act is an anti-democratic power grab is to pretend that him and his Tory colleagues are completely trustworthy. Considering that over a dozen files about the 2015 Tory Election Fraud have been handed to the Crown Prosecution Service, Davis' reassurances that the Tories can be trusted to rewrite our laws without democratic scrutiny are about as convincing as Dr Nick Riviera off the Simpsons saying "trust me, I know what I'm doing".

The contempt for democracy in Britain is rampant. When David Cameron resigned he showered his friends in undemocratic honours and peerages in the unelected House of Lords; his successor Theresa May evaded even being democratically elected as leader of her own party; the right-wing press savagely abused the judges that ruled in favour of parliamentary democracy; the unelected Prime Minister is currently swearing to obstruct the democratic mandate of the Scottish Parliament, and the Tory government have just launched an astonishing anti-democratic power grab.

Despite chuntering on and on about the EU being undemocratic in order to win the referendum, the reality is that huge numbers of Brexiters (including Tory Brexiter politicians) clearly don't give the faintest damn about democracy. In fact they actively oppose democracy by slagging off pro-democracy judges and they're silent as the Tory government introduce astoundingly anti-democratic legislation to bypass parliament completely and allow Tory ministers to rewrite the laws of the land as it suits them.

 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.




OR

Tuesday, 14 March 2017

How Wallonia looks set to do more democratic scrutiny of Brexit than the UK!


The Tory party have used Brexit to engineer an extraordinary anti-democratic coup. It was somewhat ironic that unelected peers in the House of Lords put up the fight in favour of democracy and parliamentary sovereignty, but their "meaningful vote" amendment to the absolute insult of a Brexit bill was defeated in the House of Commons as the Tories (assisted by UKIP, the DUP, the UUP and six appalling democracy-hating Labour Party rebels) cleared the path for Theresa May to scrap the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and set herself up as an autocrat who is beyond democratic accountability.

This defeat for democracy means that the Tory government will be able to make up the terms of Brexit as they go along, with no parliamentary scrutiny or approval whatever. Theresa May and her three incompetent Brexiteers will decide the future direction of the UK and there will be nothing that parliament can do to stop even the most brazenly self-serving of their machinations.


The Brexit situation is now utterly farcical. According to the terms of Article 50 the European Parliament will get a democratic vote on the post-Brexit agreement, but the Tories have engineered it so that the British parliament won't get a vote!

If things get complicated (which they likely will) and the post-Brexit trade deal becomes what is known as a Mixed Agreement, it won't just be the European Parliament that gets a vote, the individual national parliaments of the remaining 27 member states will all get a democratic vote on whether they agree to the terms, but the Tories have engineered it so that the UK parliament won't get a democratic vote!

If the post-Brexit deal becomes a Mixed Agreement it won't just be the national parliaments of the 27 remaining member states that get a vote either, the ratification procedures of Belgium include giving their regional parliaments a veto on the deal. This means that if the post-Brexit deal becomes a Mixed Agreement the Belgian regional parliament of Wallonia will get a democratic vote on it, but the UK parliament won't!

If the EU fail to cave into Theresa May's ludicrous threat-based posturing to fulfil her ridiculous list of demands for special favours for her corporate mates, there's the chance that she will launch a retaliatory and mutually ruinous "nuclear Brexit", and there will be no democratic means available for parliament to stop her doing it.

The only way for this anti-democratic Tory power-grab to be stopped now will be through the courts. However if the courts do decide to reassert that parliament is sovereign, we can be absolutely sure that whoever brings the case will be inundated with rape threats and death threats by the Brexit mob, and the pro-democracy judges will be declared "enemies of the people" again by extreme-right propaganda rags like the S*n, Daily Mail and Express.

The Tories have voted to scrap the principle of parliamentary sovereignty in favour of giving Theresa May authority to do whatever she likes free of any kind of democratic scrutiny. There's absolutely no way that such an anti-democratic power grab could be achieved within the framework of the EU. It's only by quitting the EU that such anti-democratic Tory extremism has been enabled.

It's becoming ever clearer that the European Union is actually very much more democratic than Tory Brexit Britain, and that Brexit was just an excuse for an anti-democratic Tory power-grab to free them from the democratic constraints of parliamentary scrutiny and approval. This anti-democratic Tory scheming makes me wonder how all of the people who voted for Brexit because of issues like "democracy" and "parliamentary sovereignty" are taking this.

I guess the most likely option is total denial, because for Brexit voters to accept this anti-democratic coup for what it is, would mean them accepting that they've been duped into signing a blank contract with the hard-right fringe of the Tory party, and we all know that people have a tendency to prefer the comfort of denial rather than taking the huge self-esteem hit of admitting to themselves that they've been played like gullible fools.


 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.




OR