We were taken into the Common Market in January 1973 without being asked but were given a referendum asking us if we wanted to stay in it in June 1975.
In Switzerland, with their system of Direct Democracy, the people's opinion acts as a balance or check on their government which is how democracy should work.
Democracy being made up of two Greek words Demos meaning 'People' and Kratos meaning 'Power'.
This article is well worth a read but sadly as links don't still open on this 'google' blog you will have to copy and paste it in your search engine to open it.
https://www.expatica.com/ch/politics/sw-why-switzerland-doesnt-want-to-join-the-european-union-231195/
It's ironic that the government answer to your net zero petition is that referenda are only sanctioned for constitutional change. I take that to mean all future constitutional change will have a referendum? I wonder too whether the government would care to comment on the way entering the EEC and 1975 referendum were handled given that the European project is constitutional?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOur fourth demand 'The People's Consent' states that all constitutional change would require a referendum.
ReplyDeleteThanks for that Expatica article. It gives very clear, well considered reasons why Switzerland will not accept EU membership. It is also clear that the EU and Switzerland are facing up for a battle in the next few years as neither will accept the apparent changing circumstances.
ReplyDeleteThe article also gives very clear support for some sort of Direct Democracy whilst the UK seems to be going in the opposite direction. Eg the proposals in the "Human Rights Act Reform" include phrases such as the requirements of ‘wider public interest’ and the ‘broader
needs of society’ to be considered. IE you have rights unless we decide otherwise!
How long before blogs such as this are closed down in the ‘wider public interest’?
Interestingly, I have just received a reply from my MP regarding our rights. I include my response to him below:
Delete"Thank you for taking the time to reply to my concerns about the Human Rights Act consultation.
I'm sorry that you missed the points that I was trying to make.
I was interested that you quote the government's commitment to the
EHCR, over which I have an almost identical concern. Whilst it sounds very good at first reading, Article 8 (see extract below) contains exactly the problem that I was trying to address in that it gives government the power to over-ride individual rights "except such as ... is necessary etc". In other words we are moving to a system where government decides on our rights on whatever whim is fashionable. I hope you can see that this is little less than a tyrants charter.
In fact it is one more move towards Napoleonic Law and away from the safeguards of Common Law.
This is so far from government by the people for the people ... or the safeguards that we used to have under Common Law, that I would have loved to see. If you cannot see the severity of the problem then I am really worried."
I was surprised to even get a reply from the man who represents government to me.
Until the people find their voice our government will continue to chip away at our freedoms under the guise that they are protecting our freedoms!!
DeleteHi Alfred, just to be clear in your post did you mean to refer to the ECHR rather than the EHCR?
Delete