Democracy

Lets talk about democracy.

Democracy is more than just voting every 5 years for an MP.

Democracy is an ongoing process, with Parliament being one pillar of democracy.

Others are an independent judiciary and a free press.

Over the past three years we have seen the press more and more turning on those who challenge the orthodoxy of Brexit and the validity of the referendum. Remoaners, enemies of the people, saboteurs, all are terms that have been used by the press. That the press will happily challenge one side of the argument, but not the other, gives an unfair picture of where, in with Brexit particular, where the country stands, and what we all risk.

Approximately 95% of trade and financial experts see Brexit as a massive risk, and the Government’s and Bank of England’s own assessments make it clear the country will be worse off. This is hardly mentioned, or when it is, usually alongside the term “project fear”. The BBC is bending over balance in order to present balance, but balance where only obliquely funded thinktanks can produce their own “experts”.

I mean, if the BBC news gave equal balance to scientist and flat earthers when the evidence is overwhelmingly that the earth is, in fact, round, then where would we be? But those who claim Brexit will be a benefit are give undue balance when little or none should be afforded.

I have written before that over the course of the coalition government between 2010 and 2015, limits were put on the opportunity to question the executive. Be this with the limiting of Legal Aid, restricting FOI requests, or trying to limit the scope of Judicial Reviews to fundamental legal mistakes, rather than legal loopholes. Let us be honest, breaking the law is breaking the law, and if a Government department or minister does it, then it should be straightforward and free to challenge it.

At every stage of Brexit, the Government has wanted to limit the information given to the people , the press or even Parliament on progress, and the direction the talks were going. This is in contrast to the EU who published everything. The excuse was that the Government was playing something like high stakes poker and that revealing our hand would make it more likely the UK would lose, or get a poorer trade deal.

That the EU has been negotiating the UK’s trade deals for 45 years, and probably knows more about the country’s strength and weaknesses in regard to trade shows this to be a lie.

Of course, one of the main arguments for Brexit was to return sovereignty to Westminster. But when this was suggested for forced, there was huge resistance from the Government and Remainers, who then labelled Commons as Remainers, and frustrating the will of “the people”.

Oh yes, the people.

Funnily enough, the Soviets ruled in the name of the people too, and forced their five year plans and tractor production in the name of the people. People who worked for a pittance on farms whilst politburo members drove in limousines on private lanes on motorways.

Brexit itself might not be fascist. But the process around it have fascist tendencies. And all in the name of the people.

If Brexit happens, that the UK leaves the EU on 31st October, or some other date, the provisions of the articles of the EU which protect our rights and freedoms, would no longer apply. What then would protect our rights? The Withdrawal Agreement Act gives Ministers the right to seep away our working, human or other rights as they see fit, with no recourse, meanwhile funding for legal aid has been cu, FOI reduced and Judicial Review being pushed to be limited.

Without our basic rights, we would be powerless, and the irony would be that it was all done in our name.

Nazi Germany did not begin with concentration camps, and Soviet Russia did not begin with Gulags. What has made Brexit possible could make things far worse possible, without recourse. Laws can be changed, and things that were once unthinkable can become normal. The gassing and exiling and extermination of people was all done within the law of both Germany and Russia at the time.

A one off, advisory referendum is now the unarguable “voice and will of the people” and not to be questioned. A referendum, that had the result been legally enforceable, then would have been annulled due to the law breaking by both Leave campaigns. This illegality is hardly ever mentioned, and journalists like Carole Cadwalladr, whose work for the Guardian and Observer has been trashed, rubbished by people like Nigel Farrage, Aaron Banks, and ignored by the BBC, and yet is on the Pulitzer Prize shortlist for her work in uncovering the financial and data links between Brexit, Cambridge Analytica and Facebook.

Truth and facts are the first casualty of Brexit, but will not be the last.

I really fear for this country post-Brexit. I come over sounding like a conspiracy theorist, but things that four years ago were unthinkable, are now commonplace, think of where we could be in four years time.