“IN DEMOCRACY WE TRUST?”

In a speech to the Institute for Government on the 10 February, entitled ‘In Democracy We Trust’, Sir John Major, KG, CH, described democracy as being ‘far more complex than simply having the right to vote’. Indeed it is.

Major claimed that in many countries ‘democracy is in retreat’ and was not ‘in a state of grace in the UK’. Major claimed: ‘In each of the last fifteen years, democracy has shrunk a little, as political and civil liberties have been diminished.’ Major said democracy was at risk of ‘ being weakened by populism – often with added xenophobia, or muzzled by elected autocracy’. Major regarded the populists as a threat, not least because ‘Good government has a duty to deliver unwelcome messages to electors’, which was ‘not easy’ when politicians were under ‘continuous scrutiny’ and pressure from the media and ‘impatient special interest groups’. Supposedly, there was consequentlya danger of rash promises being made that could not be delivered and so triggering a loss of public trust.

Major said in the UK ‘trust in politics’ was at a ‘low ebb’. He said politicians were responsible for this due to their resort to ‘soundbites’, ‘half-truths’, and ‘wild exaggeration’. He said: ‘Parliament is an echo chamber. Lies can become accepted as fact, which – as The Speaker has pointed out – has consequences for policy and for reputation.’ Major proceeded to condemn the breach of lockdown rules at No10. He then dredged up the proroguing of Parliament by the Boris Johnson (BJ) Government at the height of the Brexit wrangle. Major said he was pleased by the intervention of the Supreme Court which ruled the Government’s action was unlawful.

However, Major condemned the Government for being grudging in response to the Supreme Court decision, and of then threatening to break ‘International Law’ regarding Northern Ireland and the withdrawal agreement, of cutting overseas aid ‘without the prior approval of Parliament’, and of BJ being investigated for breaching the Ministerial Code. Major was particularly outraged at the lack of deference being shown to the judiciary and the legal profession: ‘When a leading tabloid labelled Judges “enemies of the people” the Justice Secretary did not leap to their defence. Other Cabinet Ministers publicly disparaged “leftie lawyers”, “activist lawyers”, and attacked Judges for “exceeding their authority”.’

My word! Major’s angst was not confined to the plight of judges and lawyers:

‘We British are a kindly people. When appeals are made for those in distress – at home or abroad – the good heart of our nation responds with compassion and generosity.

But, increasingly, across the Western world, populist pressure leads Governments to be less generous to refugees, asylum seekers and migrants.

At present, an estimated 70 million people are displaced – three times as many as at the end of the Second World War. In the next 30 years, climate change may force a further 143 million people to leave their homes.

To this, we must add unknown numbers of families fleeing from intolerable hardship and repression.

The problem is huge and growing. It needs a collaborative and international solution to help refugees, and protect the target communities that now bear the burden. Without such an approach, the next generation will inherit an insoluble problem.

In America, they build walls to keep migrants out. In Europe, they build camps to keep them in.

Here, in the UK, the Government wishes to remove British citizenship from dual nationals, without any notice or right of appeal.

It proposes serious action against criminal gangs that traffic migrants – and rightly so. But it also proposes to criminalise the migrants themselves.

We should search our souls before doing this.

Can it really be a crime to be frightened; homeless; desperate; destitute; fleeing from persecution, or war, or famine, or hardship; and to cross half the world on foot and dangerous waters in an unsafe boat, in the hope of finding a better life?’

The quick answer to that preposterous question, is ‘yes’. Furthermore, those who are concerned about being reduced to being a minority in their own country, of the grooming, rape and gang rape of English children, and of the adverse economic consequences of mass immigration should not be dismissed as populists whose views are unworthy. The UK is supposed to be a democracy and not a globalist, lawyers’ dictatorship.

Those illegal immigrants invading the UK are not destitute. They are people who have decided to invade the UK for their own financial reasons, and have paid people smugglers (including al-Qaeda, ISIS, and the Taliban) to traverse countries, continents and oceans before reaching the UK. Of importance, is that Major did not concern himself as to those killed by the terrorist and organised crime rackets running the people smuggling operations and, in effect, controlling the UK’s borders. One assumes that Major is not inferring that al-Qaeda, ISIS, and the Taliban are spending the profits from people smuggling on Christmas cards and donations to charity, rather than the weapons of terrorism, warfare or slave dealing.

If that is not bad enough, Major then had the cheek to assert: ‘It is time to re-focus on how our politics is funded. The system needs cleansing. It must never be the plaything of the rich, nor of pressure groups, yet no-one wants our politics fully funded by the State. Certainly, I don’t.’ Consequently, he demanded that ‘If a restriction on donations means an increased level of public funding of political Parties, of elections, of referendums, then so be it.’

Major’s demand for more taxpayers’ monies to be shovelled towards the party-political establishment is his own idea, and comes completely out of the blue. There is no public clamour for such and it is not a news item. He can stop sponging and get lost.

In his speech, the globalist Sir John Major has shown that he does not have an accurate understanding of democracy, or any respect for public opinion, or respect for the proper stewardship for taxpayers’ monies. He has shown himself to be acting in the interests of the establishment rather than the public he holds in contempt.