The current outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) in the United Kingdom (UK) has highlighted the extent to which liberty and the scope for responsible action have been, and are being, eroded by the centralising practices of our fiendish masters of political control. The "democratically elected" Government of the UK had to "get permission" from the arbitrarily appointed bureaucrats of the European Union (EU) before it could decide whether or not to introduce any form of vaccination against FMD as an alternative to mass slaughter of livestock (the great majority of which were perfectly healthy). It is not very long since many people throughout the world would have described the UK as a "free" country. What sort of "free" country needs to "get permission" from an overseas bureaucracy before it can make minor adjustments to its own internal housekeeping?
Within the UK itself, the evils of centralisation have been vividly demonstrated. Action on local outbreaks of FMD was often delayed for days or weeks on end because of the need to "get permission" from the paper shufflers in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) before doing what everybody on the spot knew was urgently necessary. It was not until the Army's regionally organised efficiency was called in aid that some semblance of order became discernible and the spread of the epidemic began to slow down.
The schizophrenia inherent in all centralised "democratic" governments came to the fore when it was realised that the restriction of casual movement required to control the spread of FMD was incompatible with tourism and "freedom to roam". Thereafter, mutually contradictory messages about quarantine and the country being "open for business" were disseminated on the same news bulletins by different departments of government. Only one thing was crystal clear: politicians care more about votes than they do about voters.
For several years now, there has been a desultory debate among politicians about the introduction of a "fairer" electoral system. By "fairer", they mean "better calculated to serve the electoral interests of my party". There is never any question of being "fair" to the voters, whose only political advantage over other animals is that no UK politician has yet proposed a cull of those voters who have the temerity to disagree with him or her. It is probably only a matter of time. But let us not forget that only individual persons can be "responsible" and that slavish adherence to any Political Party is, more often than not, a dereliction of personal responsibility and a negation of liberty.
The local authority elections which were to have been held on 5 May were postponed for a month lest the activities of political canvassers should prejudice the control of FMD in rural areas (or risk adverse publicity for the political parties concerned). It transpired that only the Prime Minister could vary the timing of a local election. What possible rational justification can there be for such an extreme example of centralisation? Why can the people in the various electoral wards, parishes, constituencies, etc., not decide for themselves how they should select candidates, what voting system they should use, when and in what circumstances they should use it, and how much their elected representatives should be paid? There is only one reason: such a system would restore some semblance of true democracy to responsible subjects of the Queen, and do much to rein in overweening ambition by politicians whose governmental competence is invariably greatly exceeded by their egotism.
Consider for a moment how the present Dictator of Local Government Elections came to hold his privileged position. The most significant step was his own decision to become active in a major political party. That was the point at which he ceased to be part of the national electorate and became a runner in a rat race for the acquisition of political power and the chance of becoming a "people farmer" on a large scale. His subsequent career was determined by the Party machinery for selecting Parliamentary candidates. The partisan voters of a carefully selected constituency got him elected as their Parliamentary representative. Thereafter, all he had to do was fight it out with a small number of relatively undistinguished contestants for the Leadership of a Party whose total national membership is currently no more than three hundred thousand in a national population of roughly 60 million. Yet it is widely held that he was "democratically elected".
Sadly, this man's "elected dictatorship" does not end with Local Government elections. He is the Supreme Authority within the United Kingdom for Granting and Withholding Permission for all sorts of things. Thanks in no small part to his dictatorship, the UK is now markedly less united than it was four years ago. He deploys the Armed Forces of the Crown with gay abandon to suppress unrest in parts of the world which should be left to the care of their own responsible citizens. He presides over a government which abuses the tax system in order to increase dependency on government handouts — and thus diminishes scope for the exercise of personal responsibility. He fiddles around with virtually every facet of British life, including such relative trivia as Millennium Domes, Opera Houses and Sports Stadia — with spectacularly expensive results. He has a record of granting permission to the bureaucrats of the continental EU to impose increasingly debilitating and stultifying regulations over the economic, social and juridical institutions developed over the better part of a millennium to suit the diverse tastes and cultures of the inhabitants of these offshore islands. He has abandoned a natural system of weights and measures whose use goes back to time immemorial in favour of a totally artificial system. He has expressed willingness to abolish the national currency and further submerge the sovereignty of the UK in a totalitarian European tyranny — presumably in the hope that he will then be able to strut his stuff on a larger stage.
The above is not intended as an attack upon the character of the present Prime Minister. It is an attack on the system which makes this sort of tyranny possible. It does not matter much which political party "wins" an election under the present system. One party political dictator is likely to be much like another. They are all in it for the same reasons. They need each other and the semblance of some divisions between them to disguise the ultimate purpose of all political parties: to enable some of their number to become leaders and so to farm the rest of the people as if they were tax-yielding cattle.
The two World Wars that blighted the first half of the twentieth century were supposedly fought against tyranny. One cannot now help wondering if there was any point whatever to the sacrifice of millions of lives in these conflicts. There is no reason to suppose that Hitler's currency would be markedly inferior to the Euro — and Hitler would in any case be dead by now. A key feature of the command structure erected by the politicians of the EU is that it is designed to be independent of the life of any individual. Once firmly established, with no accountability to anyone, there is no possibility of its being modified or moderated by any means short of widespread civil disobedience. Nothing could run more counter to the grain of the British people. Yet successive UK Prime Ministers have more or less enthusiastically acquiesced in making the British Parliament increasingly subservient to this foreign power, and thereby deprived the British voters of any means of resisting unwarranted and aggressive colonisation by an alien continental political philosophy.
King James IV of Scotland was undoubtedly right when he said: "The pen is mightier than the sword". Is it not time for all patriotic Britons to raise their pens and pound their keyboards in defence of democracy in a country that, for all its faults, has long led the world in its respect for individual liberty?
Are you, too, sickened every Remembrance Sunday at the sight of politicians lining up at the Cenotaph in Whitehall to pay their empty respects before going back to their offices to plot further inroads into the ordinary individual's enjoyment of life and liberty? If so, your best hope is to start exercising your personal responsibility NOW by doing what you know to be right without asking permission from anybody.