Don't it make you proud?

Yes, The Economist's Democracy Index ranks us 19th out of 26 in democracies around the world.

Clicking image should, viagra like, make it bigger.

Yes, the UK, not as good as Malta or Luxembourg, slightly better than Mauritius and Costa Rica.

Still, could be worse, the Italians and French are ranked under 'flawed democracies'.

It's the only time I can think that I'd like the European parliament to be recognised, I wonder which category they would come under? Hybrid regimes, perhaps? That'd put them in the same category as such luminaries as Hong Kong SAR, Albania, Malawi and Palestine.

It's enough to make you swell with pride.

For the people.

Twitter was alive last night with talk of events down at the council chamber where Lambeth council do their business. There have been a number of demonstrations against the cuts to public spending which are planned by the council and things came to a head last night when, well, I'll let 'uncutter' at Indymedia London take over:

Lambeth town hall in Brixton was taken over and occupied by protestors as the council met to vote through budget cuts of tens of millions of pounds. Hundreds of people gathered outside the town hall (as they'd done previously two weeks ago) and at around 7pm took over the chamber chanting "This is what democracy looks like" and "No ifs, no buts, no public services cuts!", before holding a people's assembly.

After withdrawing the council members met under a police guard to vote through the cuts. The occupation ended at around 9pm as people marched out after 2 hours of discussions and speeches at the 'people's council'.

This sort of thing chills me to the bone. I always get very uneasy when activists and politicians talk about 'the people'. I'm afraid that in a population of 272,000, a group of hundreds does not represent democracy, it does not even represent double figures of the population in terms of percentage. To try and pass it off as democracy is misleading.

I'm not going to get into the whole Keynsian discussion again, but I will state that I do support public spending cuts, because there is so much that goverment is involved in. that it has no business doing. I do not trust the politicians and civil servants to cut where the fat is, though. They will always protect their own empires and pet projects.

A 'people's council' (sic) does not represent the people. It never can, even the most representative, even handed and well regarded assembly cannot represent the people, it can only represent the majority. I am not convinced that a hastily convened peoples' council in Lambeth is representative of the majority. This is a term used to marginalise and stigmatise people. What we saw last night was a trailer of things to come, or things that have happened elsewhere. A group of people, through force and violence, establish themselves and then claim to speak for 'the people' as if the population is one homogenous mass with identical wishes, desires and aspirations.

This is always a mistake made by authoritarian (mainly left-wing) regimes, people are individuals. What you are doing is trying to project your view of what you think the people should be onto that population. You believe that your ideas and policies are right. Well, I think the same of mine, of course I do, otherwise I wouldn't hold them, the same holds true for you. The difference between us, is that I do not seek to impose my vision on others. What happens when people do not share you views, do not want your vision? We've seen it time and time again, Stalin, Hoxha, Pot, Mao, all ruled in the name of 'the people'. How many of them were the wrong sort of people? How many of them were imprisoned, executed and subjected to horrific treatment as a result? Kim Jong-Il rules in the name of the people. I didn't see any election, he was annointed. What do the people think of him? I'm sure his approval rates are through the roof, his population wouldn't dare express anything but satisfaction. What about Gaddafi? Ask him this morning, he'll still tell you he's ruling in the name of the people, it is the enemies of the people who are stirring up trouble, the real people love him. So much do they love him, he would submit, that they are happy that 10,000 lie dead on the streets of Libya. This is what rule in the name of the people looks like.

Let us not kid ourselves here. When you claim you are acting for the people, you are using it as a crutch to prop up your own crumbling credibility. Oh, you know that the majority follow you. You know you have the support of tens of thousands in your borough. You know that everyone is up in arms at the cuts.

Everyone? He asks with eyebrow raised in a questioning fashion.

Well, everyone that counts.

Ah, there we go. No. Not everyone, otherwise in the recent general election your lot would have found themselves with an increased majority. That, no matter how flawed, how un-representative, is the closest we have to democracy in this country. And when people stop counting, that is where the trouble begins.

I'm not suggesting that we're about to see RAF air strikes on the population of Brixton, but unelected, unaccountable people make odd decisions and have, what appears to me, a skewed view of the world. I'll give you an example.

I was watching the first episode of Heston's Mission Impossible on C4 the other night. (The link is to the 4od player) I like Heston, he is imaginative, passionate and practical. His series on the overhaul of the Little Chef menu was very good. In this, the first episode of his new series where he does the same to different sectors of the catering industry, he was working his magic at Alder Hey hospital. No hectoring and lecturing in the style of Jamie Wotsisname here, just getting on with the job.

Notes from a hospital bed is an established critique of the terrible food on offer in our hospitals, so head over there, and you'll see the form guide. Needless to say, the food given to the kids in the hospital was terrible. Without wanting to come over all lisping and mockney, surely, kids in hospital need decent scran to aid their recovery? Yet they were served dross and plates were returned, untouched. Parents, who have paid for this food, without the option to opt-out, in the form of their taxes, were having to bring in grub for their kids. It is a story reproduced throughout the NHS.

In the first portion of the show, Heston went to the kitchens to investigate and was shown a menu, it looked alright, it transpired it was for the staff canteen, public restaurant and (I really couldn't believe this) outside functions. The head of catering stated that 90% of food prepared in the hozzie kitchens was fresh, from scratch. The 10% excluded? Yes, the children. The group that is the hospital's enitre reason for being. Out of a cooking staff of 14, only two were making the childrens' food. 'Welcome to the NHS' was the response from the head of catering.

He would maintain that he is absolutely acting in the best interest of the children. However, there was no communication between the kids and the kitchens.

Gaddafi, Kim and the Lambeth Peoples' Council would maintain that they are absolutely acting in the best interest of the people. However, there is no communication between the people and the government.

Of course, those occupying Lambeth council chamber last night would say they were different, just as every unelected, unaccountable, dictatorial regime that has gone before is different. This time it will be different, this time we're not the same as all the others, we care, we know what is wrong, we know the answers. Every time the end result is the same.

When you invoke the name of the people, you are hiding behind a legend, in the same way that Westboro Baptist Church invoke the name of God when they indulge in their revolting homophobic activities. When the Islamic fundamentalists bomb innocent people, or beat, maim and execute people, they do it whilst hiding behind the shield of an unspeaking God, you would no doubt condemn their actions, yet from where I'm sitting, you don't look so different when you hide behind the shield of a silent supposed majority.

No, you'll get no support from this quarter.

Is what's right, right?

A few days ago I blogged about the self-determination of Kosovo, and how I did not believe it was right for the ICJ to rule on the country's fate.

This morning there is a story of the courts overturning a clear and present declaration of the will of the electorate, with a Federal Judge overturning the decision of the people of California to disallow same sex marriages.

This presents me with something of a conundrum. As a Libertarian I belive passionately that if two people decide they want to marry, then that is no-one's business but their's. I couldn't care less if these people are of a different or the same gender. It really is nothing to do with me. As long as both parties are content to enter into the marriage and are doing so of their own free will, then nobody else is being harmed, so there is no need for any scrutiny or permission from anyone else.

Indeed I would also say the same about bigamy, if a man or woman wishes to take two or more spouses, then as long as all the parties, existing and prospective, are aware and content, then I see no problem with this.

I was surprised that the people of California decided to reject the concept of same sex marriages. California has always had a reputation as one of the more tolerant states in the Union, but the decision to reject was made clearly by the electorate.

So now comes the conundrum.

Is it right for the electorate to dictate what two people can do with their lives when that decision has no influence on how other people live theirs? I believe not, the freedom of the individual is paramount.

Is it right that the Courts can then go in and overturn the decision of the electorate? I believe not, as a supporter of democracy, the will of 'the people' must be sovereign over the machinery of the State. That apparatus, in a democracy, is there to facilitate the will of 'the people'.

At the risk of sounding like an EU apparatchik, it would have been better had the people of California voted to accept the concept of same sex marriages. In my opinion, they made the 'wrong' decision. However, I have said on a number of previous occasions that in democracy there is no right or wrong decision, merely a decision you agree or do not agree with.

Unfortunately, it seems clear to me that the decision to reject by the people of California can only come down to two issues.

The first is bigotry, that somehow homosexuality is wrong, and despite the fact that the bigot has no intention of engaging in homosexuality, and will not be effected by the act being carried out by two people unconnected to them, they feel that they are in a moral position which requires them to prevent this sort of relationship being given any legitimacy.

This is likely to be underpinned in most cases by the second issue, that being religion. God says it is wrong, therefore we must prevent it. Never mind that should God exist, He is perfectly capable of making his own judgement and implementing his own sanction. Never mind that should God exist, 'His' word is without doubt the word of men who wrote on his behalf, in a rambling text which is contradictory both in content and the way that its adherents apply the lessons contained within.

I find it amazing that even now, this document is being used to determine the way people are permitted to live their lives, even if no hurt is being done to others.

It doesn't help me with my conundrum though. To promote the ignoring of the will of the people because they have come to a decision I do not agree with would make me as bad as those I rail against. To accept that the apparatus of the State can override the will of the people is a concept that I find repugnant, but do I find it as or more repugnant than the idea that the will of the people can prevent peaceful people leading their private lives, with no detriment to anyone else, as they wish?

I don't know.

The One That Wants To Time Travel . . .

What a country has been built over the last thirteen years. When I think back to those first few months of the Labour administration in 1997, I think of the hope that coursed through the veins of the British public, the great and good (and Oasis) queuing up to shake the hand of Blair.

Good God, how did he do it? How did he get them to file into his house like star-struck teenage autograph hunters? Say what you like about Blair, but man, his PR was good in those days.

In 1997 it was going to be different this time. The old remnants of a divided, corrupt and arrogant Conservative party had been swept away, replaced by a shining new Labour party, shorn of the old hateful, envious, nationalising mania of the past; waiting to carry us in to this glorious new Jerusalem to the sounds of masses cheering, screaming guitars and hip dance music.

Truth be told, the Tories really haven’t changed over this last decade, they dress in a more modern fashion, they’ve learned how to present and have dulled that edge which many found so objectionable, but the PR transformation is nowhere near that of Labour in the mid 90’s.

We now look at a Labour government which is just as divided as the Tories ever were under Major, and as far as my memory serves me are more corrupt and light years ahead in the arrogance stakes. That those Tories had to be kicked out in 1997 is without doubt. That a good many people called warnings from the sidelines is well remembered. Did anyone, even New Labour’s most venomous critics, expect what we have now?

The vista of British society and community is as devastated, as unrecognisable as the Haitian capital. If you had shown a picture of today’s Britain to everyone’s thirteen years younger selves in 1997, what would their response have been?

How would they have reacted to see legions losing their lives to infections in hospital? They would have heard of nothing like it since the charnel houses of the Peninsular campaign.

How would they have responded to being told that they would have no choice but to be electronically stripped searched before heading off on their holidays?

How would they have accepted the notion of a government that declared a legally questionable war, especially when the threat to our security was almost nil?

What would they have said upon hearing about real suspicion falling on the government following the death of one of its prime experts in suspicious circumstances, especially when they then decided to bury the records for 70 years, after having him thoroughly smeared and discredited?

How would they have felt upon learning that they would face a good chance of arrest, or at least questioning, for taking pictures of famous landmarks, and being suspected of terrorism by a politicised police force?

What would they have thought about the pandering to the professionally offended, or at least those who quake in their boots at the prospect, to the extent that jobs cannot be advertised with a request for reliable and hard working people?

How would they come to terms with a government that illegally imprisons people in their own houses, freezing their assets and allowing them £10 a week to live, because it is suspected they may be involved in terrorism, whilst the convicted are released early and an increasing underclass can claim the monthly average wage in handouts and are penalised even if they do want to work?

How could they have understood that in a democracy, you would have had to apply for permission from the authorities to hold a demonstration outside parliament?

How would they have stared with incompetence when they learned that they had been lied to over getting a say in the signing away of our sovereignty?

How could they deal with the fact that the lowest earners had seen their tax burden sky-rocket whilst the country attracted more debt than had ever been conceivable?

The list could go on, when you look over this government’s achievements you see nothing but failure, deceit, vanity, hubris and the almost complete humiliation of those who elected them.

It will be different this time, there will be no cheering crowds, no film and pop stars waiting patiently in line to be seen pressing the flesh, no glorious new Jerusalem; there will be the knowledge that there will be no change, and a flinty look in the eye of the electorate waiting for the Tories to show themselves to be as feckless, reckless and thoughtless as Labour, and for an opportunity to remove them from power as soon as possible.

Let’s see how the ‘others’ column does over the next five years. Democracy is not dead in Britain, it is just being born.

Update:

A very interesting item over at Captain Ranty's place, not a million miles removed from my ramblings.

The One That Is Quivering With Anticipation. . .

I'm not going to go over old ground, especially as Mac the Knife has done such a capital job.

EU leaders are said to be furious that the Czech Republic is planning to delay signing the Lisbon treaty for up to six months even if the Irish vote "yes" in their referendum next month

I've commented before about the huge respect I have for Vaclav Klaus, as Mac points out he's seen tyranny and supression before, he's got the T-shirt and can see the EU for what it really is.

And what is it?

Nicolas Sarkozy, who helped to draw up the treaty after the French and Dutch voted against its predecessor, the EU Constitution, has warned Prague that it faces "consequences" if it does not swiftly follow an Irish "yes" with its own ratification.

Yeah, that's about right. This will be free and democratic, unless we don't like what you do. Did you notice the fact that an Irish yes is a certainty? Even if they say no, they'll say yes. Eventually. Or there'll be 'consequences'.

Well fuck you, you shortarsed little twat. One would have thought, given your father's tribulations with the Red Army in Hungary during the war and the Soviet's actions in Budapest in 1956, that you'd have a fairly sympathetic attitude towards those who fear the worst with the EU. But of course, there's a big difference here, isn't there, Nicolas? This time it is you in the big chair with the machinery behind you.

If only our politicians had the brass balls that Klaus has shown. Once again I take my hat off to him, and wonder if Cameron has the integrity to keep his promises.

The One That Bets They Don't Get The Chance. . .

Jose Manuel Barroso after the Germans throw out the Lisbon Treaty.

According to Open Europe, 77% of Germans want a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

I've a shiny €10 note that says they don't get it.

Let's look at some of the quotes attributed in this report:

German press agency DPA reported this week that "nobody expects a complete 'No'" from the judges, adding that "a 'yes, but' is considered a possibility.

Errr, no. Try Yes or No. Simple as that.

Irish Europe Minister Dick Roche said in the aftermath of the Irish 'no' vote that "the first thing to learn about referendums - is to avoid them.

The first thing to learn about Dick Roche is to kick him very hard. In the head. Every ten minutes.

Former Commission President Jacques Santer added: "A referendum is good for democracy; it is not always good for a country. We need to make a distinction between democracy and what is good for the country.

News flash, Jacques, you detestible merde petit, the EU is not a country. Fucktard.

Valery Giscard d'Estaing, has explained the reason why it was renamed the Lisbon Treaty, saying: "Above all, it is to avoid having a referendum.

Because referenda look likely to tell us that the electorate don't like our plans, and that won't do, that won't do at all. If we don't ask them, they can't tell us.

However, there is hope:

Bavarian Minister-President Horst Seehofer has said: "We want the population to be asked before German competences are irrevocably transferred to Brussels.

Nice one Horst, fancy pointing that out to Angela?

Silvana Koch-Mehrin, leader of the German liberals in the European Parliament, said: "Without a referendum in Europe the growing gap between the EU and its citizens will keep on growing."

Although the cynic in me must point out that Silvana doesn't say if that is a bad thing or not.

Reporting Judge Udo Di Fabio said: "One has to ask soberly: What competences are left with the Bundestag in the end?" He also bluntly asked "whether it would not be more honest to just proclaim a European federal state". On the transfer of powers to the EU, he said: "Is the idea of going ever more in this direction not a threat to freedom?"

To answer those points; None. Yes, but there would be millions on the streets (but not in the UK, the BBC would show an Eastenders special, before C4 announce a surprise eviction on Big Brother). Yes, yes it is a very direct threat to freedom. I kinda think that's the point.

We're not dead yet, but we're not at all well. The Czechs and Poles have yet to sign, I'm unsure about the Danes' state of play, and perhaps the Irish will be persuaded by the no camp that the EU thinks they are all stupid bog trotters who should do as they are fucking told. Perhaps we can send them a picture like this?


It may not be flattering for us in England, but it'll allow the Irish to get the message.

The One That Is Thankful. . .

A day of contrasts across the board.

Blears really puts the cat amongst the pigeons and stops just shy of issuing a call for a leadership challenge to Brown, Sky News reports that a group of Labour backbenchers have started an email campaign against Gordon which seems to have the support of 80 or so of the lobby fodder.

Rumours also abound that Caroline Flint and Andy 'Cosmetics' Burnham are also set to walk.

Cameron was as effective as a paper condom at PMQ's this afternoon, and in my opinion out-performed (and not for the first time) by Wossinsname Clegg from the Social Democrats.

A very interesting post by Guthrum over at the LPUK blog put forward the theory that Royal and military agents were behind the leaking of the expenses. I'm not sure if I subscribe to it, but I'm not about to dismiss it and it certainly fits the events.

Many people commented in the late winter that we were due a 'summer of rage' and that the PM was itching to use the Civil Contingencies Act to get the troops on the street, there were even reports of servicemen being surveyed to see if they would open fire on their countrymen.

All that seems a little irrelevant now, I find it impossible to see a way for Brown to survive this chain of events, the local election results on Friday could well be the knock-out punch, the European results on Sunday evening will more than likely finish him once and for all.

No tanks on the street.

Whilst I'm heartened that the media, public and latterly the ministers have turned on this Prime Minister, it is unfortunate that it has taken a corruption story to turn the tide, but then the policy scandal of the last 12 years haven't been sexy enough. Perhaps, maybe, the public will pay a little more attention to what is being done in their names beyond expenses after this.

However do not underestimate the public strength of feeling over corruption. Today marks the 20th anniversary of Tiananmen Square, a mass protest which was against a controlling and thoroughly reprehensible government which was catalysed by corruption, the difference being that this was put down with troops and tanks.

We may be under the thumb of an overbearing and controlling institution in the EU that waters down the power of our national parliament, we may have a leader who refuses to bend to national opinion, we may have no credible opposition, but at least we have the chance to change all that and we don't have to worry about troops and tanks.

For that, I am thankful.

Things need to change, radically and with speed, but we can do it without fearing for our lives.

So when the polling stations are open tomorrow, step out and take a minute or two from your hectic schedule and vote for what you want, get connected and hold the elected representatives to account for what they have done in YOUR name.

The One That Is Saying 'Riiiiiiiiiiight', In A Sceptical Manner. . .

Reports in the news today that plans to elect people into senior positions in the police have been dropped.

Apparently senior officers were worried it would effect their operational independence. What? The police are not independent and should not be independent. The police are there because society demands they are there. They should be politically independent, but they police for us and should police in a manner that we want. Having directly elected chiefs would ensure that this would happen, because if they didn't they'd be out of a job PDQ.

Speaking of independence it would also appear to have been dropped because some Labour councillors could see that they'd not be able to lean on the police to do their bidding. If that isn't the biggest argument in favour of direct election then I don't know what is.

So which is it? Is it that having elected police cheifs will infringe on police independence or is it that having police chiefs appointed means that their indepenedence is kept in check by political pressure? Double-think.

And then, Jacqui Smith says that the police are becoming (becoming?!?!) politicised. She cites the Boris inspired departure of Sir Ian Blair, surely the most political police chief in the history of any police force in British history. She told the Graun that she was worried about the behaviour of the Tories politicising the Old Bill! She's got some fucking front, I'll give her that.

Not that I'm suggesting that the Tories will be any different. They are become a political militia, arresting those who speak out against the government (see Damian Green and that German bloke who was nicked at the ZNL conference who's name escapes me at the moment), producing figures the government want and only really investigating the crimes which government deems important.

I'll let you in to a secret, if you are the victim of a crime, it is important, whatever the crime. People don't want a support group or therapy, they don't want uniformed officers sitting in offices ticking boxes and implementing the latest social inclusion outreach stakeholder engagement programme, they don't want the Police chasing round to someone's house and kicking the doors in because they're growing tomatoes in their windowbox, or responding en masse because some chav has texted a threat to the new boyfriend of the woman he once screwed and impregnated. They do want an officer or two to attend within the hour because someone has smashed in a window and helped themselves to their jewellery box, not a visit six days later from a PCSO.

Want to know how awful the management of the police are, and the level of frustration felt by the people on the front-line? Read Inspector Gadget and Nightjack. You'd think they were made up, but it is just too bizarre to be fiction.

The One That Is Going To Buy A Tin Helmet. . .

Leg-Iron wrote a truly astouding article on the drivellings of some Daily Mirror hack who has effectively called for radical groups to visit violence upon those who are members of the BNP. Indeed Leg-Iron is swiftly becoming one of the best writers out there. So good is he, that I expect to see him carted off in a police car for terror offences before long.

The gist of the article is that people like the moronic Brian Reade have been able to pick on vilified individuals like smokers, drinkers, the obese, Daniel O'Donnell fans, etc without any fear of reprisals as they are but individuals. There may be many like them, but they have no association. The problem begins when you incite violence against an organisation that has a good number of members and even more non-member supporters, they will respond in an organised fashion and it can only escalate. It is the few little stones slipping at the top of the mountain that results in the catastrophic avalanche at the bottom.

The little stones have slipped.

A car has been burned out on an estate (that apparently has no history of such activities) on a road, outside a house of one of those who was listed on the BNP membership document that was leaked.

- It is irrelevant that the car may not have belonged to a BNP member. It will have turned up the pressure a notch.

- It is irrelevant that those who set light to it may not be members of any black radical group. The real perpetrator is unlikely to identify themselves, the perception will be that it was someone who is a member of, or sympathetic to black radical groups. It will have turned up the pressure a notch.

- It is irrelevant that the person on this estate may have a wife, children, elderly relatives, now angry and fearful for their property and their lives. It will have turned up the pressure a notch.

- It is irrelevant that this guy's next door neighbour has seen his car torched, it doesn't belong to the BNP member. He now feels anger towards this anonymous group, whether they are responsible or not. The BNP recruiting Sergeant gets a new conscript without leaving his armchair. It will have turned up the pressure a notch.

- It is irrelevant that the person on this estate named on the BNP list may not even be a member of the BNP. We have no proof that the list is either accurate or genuine. If this has been brought about by some fifth column working in the party, who knows who they have stuck on the list to settle some personal vendetta. It will have turned up the pressure a notch.

Already those little stones are picking up snow, and we've only had one incident. All it takes tonight is some white bloke to get a thump outside a kebab shop and blame it on the 'coons or the pakis', all it takes tonight is some drunken lout who decides to pay his Asian taxi driver with a smack in the mouth rather than a tenner, and the stones pick up more snow. It doesn't matter that one is a liar and the other is an idiot, is it seen as reprisals or a concerted campaign, and it can only escalate.

Real, real danger of large scale civic disorder. The line between order and chaos is a micron thin. The electricity goes out and looting begins. The shops run out of bread and riots erupt. A white man gets stabbed by a black man, the next day three black men get shot by one white man. What next? A mini-van full of football supporters? A church choir on a bus? The church itself on a Sunday morning?

I watched Question Time last night and was aghast at the complacency of the 'established' parties. Saying they didn't want kids being politicised in the classroom, when they are putting Fabians in the classroom. Sneering as they consistently referred to the BNP as a 'legal' political party. Are there any illegal ones? Why? How can there be in a democracy? The inescapable feeling that they were just itching for an excuse to ban them.

Then who? UKIP? The Libertarians? The Socialist Workers? The Greens? That's them out of the way. Hmmmm, they still find Sinn Fein, UDP, Plaid Cymru and the SNP objectionable. They'll be got rid of. The Tories and Labour could get enough votes in the house to ban the Lib Dems, why not?

I despise the BNP and no doubt their members would find my political views reprehensible. The difference between us is that I appreciate the need for these people to be able to hold their views, no matter how strongly I disagree with them. I'm afraid I can't say the same for them.

But their popularity is easily explained. Take every election night as dinner time. Every dinner time you have a choice of spaghetti bolognese, or meatballs and pasta, or pasta in tomato sauce. Who wouldn't get fed up of it? Who wouldn't go and find something else to eat and try to order off menu?

BNP membership and voters are not the fault of the BNP and racists, they are the fault of the main political parties who will not listen, who will not react to the wishes of their constituents, who will continue to unthinkingly impose their will on the country because they have a 'mandate' and a 'common purpose.'

It was they who sat at the top of that mountain, and gave those little stones a kick without giving it a thought.

The One That Is Amazed With The Bone Headedness. . .

There's been reams written about it, a forest of paper and a lake of ink taken up in newsprint, but since the Irish voted 'No' to Lisbon, one phrase keeps coming to the fore. This little quote is taken from http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,3417083,00.html:

The EU executive has commissioned a survey to try and find out what went wrong in Ireland.

I'll tell you what went wrong in Ireland: Nothing.

It was a process of democracy. There is no right or wrong answer, merely an outcome. It may be outcome that you do not agree with, but that does not mean it is wrong. I am thankful that it is an outcome that I find favourable, but make no mistake had the vote been 'Yes' I would have accepted the outcome as the democratic desicion of the Irish people.

I fail to understand why this is so difficult for people to grasp. We had it only a few weeks ago when Boris won the London Mayoral election, those with Labour sympathies were bemoaning the death of democracy and the electorate making the wrong decision.

No, No, No. Not the death of democracy, indeed quite the reverse, an indication that on the occasions when the old war horse is led out of the stable she is as energetic and vital as ever. Not the wrong decision, merely an outcome that is not to your liking.

Unfortunately the wishes of the Irish public would appear to amount to nought. Al-Beeb is trotting out the line that only 3 million people voted in the whole of the EU. That is not a statistic to make the Irish referendum an irrelevance, it is a damning statistic about the dictatorial nature of the EU and their national sub-alterns that so few people have had a say on the treaty. We in the UK have had no direct opportunity to give an opinion since Heath and the Common Market, before I was born, and we certainly didn't vote in favour of this.

The Romanians have come out with some swill that effectively says if people are going to vote the wrong way, then they shouldn't be allowed to vote at all. Dangerous, dangerous ground. Those in Eastern Europe would do well to remember what happened to the Romanian Communist Party and their leaders, I for one will never forget the footage of the moment the crowd turned, Ceaucescu's look of complete incomprehension and the military big-wigs behind him very quietly and efficiently shitting themselves.

These dictatorial post-war regimes lasted 40 years before the populations rose up for a taste of democracy, here in the West we've had that taste for decades, verging on centuries. How long will it take us to rise up? Not as long as 40 years, I'll bet.