So what a few months it has been in the world of politics. With the results of the UK European Referendum being challenged in court and the first Executive order of President Trump being challenged in court. Yes you heard me right. Court.
But let me explain.
UK European Referendum Process Court Battle
So you may remember last year in June the UK held a vote to discuss the future of the UK within the EU, the referendum was pretty straight forward. The UK voters were asked to vote Yes or No as to whether the UK should remain a member of the European Union.
If you check out my other post http://blog.potissimus.co.uk/2017/01/17/brexit-and-the-future-of-the-uk/ you can see that over 70% of voters turned out with a majority of over 51% saying they wish to leave the EU.
So Why The Court Case?
We have an elected government in the UK, currently Conservative. It is their job to do what is best for the UK in all matters, however one person namely Gina Miller, an investment banker thought that the whole of parliament needed to be involved in the discussion. In particular in how and when we actually trigger Article 50 and the terms for doing so.
In my opinion this is wrong. Whilst I agree there should be some discussion in parliament about the terms of the UK leaving the EU. As this is something that was always going to happen a court case was unnecessary. The actual triggering of Article 50 should have been left to the government to decide when and how. Remember they are an election government, elected by the people.
Following the triggering of Article 50 the UK has almost 2 years to agree terms with the EU. This is something that was always going to happen,and should and will be discussed in parliament between all parties.
Miss Miller and her associates took it upon themselves to challenge the Prime Ministers right to simply trigger Article 50. This lead to a court case in which some MPs, media and other remainers, were saying would lead to another EU referendum. Thankfully this never happened and the MPs voting did the right thing and supported the Prime Minister in her trigger of Article 50, taking the UK out of the EU. Remember that is how the public voted and that’s what is going to happen.
The only reason for this court case is that Miss Miller felt she knew better and was unhappy as to how the vote went, and I for one think she was hoping for some kind of overturn or demand for a 2nd referendum as the outcome. (you can clearly see from the above photo she is way too happy for someone winning such a court case)
Winning the court case lead to not only a hughe legal bill for the government but to over 3 days of parliamentary talks involving most of the countries 650 MPs, not to mention administration of such debates. This all costs money, a point Gina Miller seems to have forgotten. Only to end up with the voting of a bill to trigger Article 50.
Not really a great use of public funds in a time of austerity.
US President Donald Trump – Travel Ban Executive Order
Now we move over the pond to the USA, and the fact Donald Trump is no president and keeping to his campaign promises to make America a safer place. To do this his signed and executive order banning entry to the US for people travelling from certain countries. Countries known for their ties to terrorism and terrorist groups such as ISIS, Hamas to name but a few.
So What is Wrong With That?
The short answer is nothing, absolutely nothing. Making the US a safer place is a good thing. However as the countries in question are predominantly Islamic countries, the Western media called it a Muslim ban, rather than the travel ban it really is.
The funny thing about the ban is that apart from Syria, the other countries were actually taken from an Obama-era list of countries to be aware of and are a terror threat to the US. Pretty strange how their were no protests when Obama came up with that list or banned countries himself.
This lead to protests, campaigns and everything in between from the left trying to make out President Trump is a racist, Islamophobic (not even a real word) amongst other things. Then a few human rights lawyers, who it must be stated are not interested in the human rights of christian Americans only immigrants, took the order to court. A judge in Brooklyn (an area with large Hillary support) ruled it was illegal and put a stay on the order.
Now call me a cynic but the people involved in this process are all supporters of either Hillary Clinton, or none Christian Americans. Just look at the news today and see how many ‘so called’ Human Rights lawyers are camped out in the airports to help immigrants arriving in the US during the ordered Stay period.
Travel Ban Not Re-instated
Following the original Stay order, the government took the decision to an appeals court. Sadly the order was not reinstated. Again in my view these judges were not acting to the letter of the law, they were acting with divisive thoughts in their heads. As the media made it all about Muslims, when it wasn’t. Leading the judges to raise and mention the word Muslim in the hearing, which had nothing to do with the order or its legality.
President Obama used the same laws to enforce country specific bans, yet due to lack of media coverage their was no out cry.
The left wing media and all the Fake News they keep spreading about President Trump lead the judges down a slipper path. One in which they made the order out to be illegal and against a certain religion, when its was and is only ever about US security.
Even now the media is saying there have been no terror attacks on the US from any of the countries listed in the order. Lets say that is true, in my view its better to prevent the attack than do something after it happens.
Shutting the gate after the horse has bolted comes to mind.
Surely its better to preempt a terror attack than to allow your country to be open to attack from inside. I agree with President Trump in that, if during the stay period any terror attacks occur the judges will be liable.
The Future of Democracy
Sadly we are living in a time when the Western media is no longer bias, they are controlled or more to the point brainwashed. Left values are portrayed and anyone saying otherwise is called everything from racist, islamophobic (still not a real word), xenophobic or many other things. Its a time when you can no longer speak up without fear of retribution, organisations can openly hire none white people and set targets accordingly.
Gone are the days of simply hiring the right person for the job regardless of their race, religion or sex.
The problem is this plays into the hands of the parts of the world set on global domination, namely the Middle East, India, etc. As any mention of anything against them brings out waves of protests by people who don’t know any better. Western society was built over a period of thousands of years, and modern society built over several hundred years, immigration has always been apart of that culture. We have always had certain people coming to other countries, everything from the Vikings, Normans and Romans in the UK to the British, Spanish and French to the US. Now it is not Western societies fault that it is more developed, more advanced with more opportunities for everyone, than other areas on the planet. After all the human race all started in the same place, everyone had the same chances, some just made more out of it than others.
We live in a time when people are trying to change cultures, rather than integrate and accept the cultures of the country they travel to. This applies just as much to someone from the West moving to the Middle East, or the Middle East to the West as well as someone in the UK moving to Spain. Much like the West must accept the cultures and religions on Middle Eastern countries when we travel there. This especially goes for Western women, they have fought long and hard to be equal to men, and I for one think this is the way it should be. Again the right person for the job regardless of anything. However some cultures this is not the case and women are second class citizens.
Note also that these Middle Eastern countries do what they think is best for their people, including not taking in refugees. Yet no one protests or complains.
The West has created the current democratic vote, and allowing the current events to happen is undoing years of work.
So What Has This Got to Do With Democracy?
In western society we run democracies which is the way it should be, by allowing the continued influx and protests of people with different values. We are undoing years of work by people fighting to have a say.
As the West is run by the democratic vote, this means anyone who has the right to and wants to, can have a say about who is running their country. In doing so we realise by voting people into a position of power, we are accepting the responsibility and powers they have.
However by allowing private individuals to take governments to court over matters that have should never have gone to court, is opening the door to a worrying future. Creating an autocratic society NOT a democratic one.
Every time someone in parliament does something we don’t like or doesn’t go our way, should we be able to challenge that in court? if the president does something someone doesn’t like, should they be able to challenge that in court?
My view on this is a simple. NO.
Governments are in place for a reason. The people put them their, and when the actions of these governments are looking out for their people, we should let them do they jobs. Challenging them comes at huge costs, both in terms of financial not to mention where is the real power.
Take both of the issue above as an example, the UK government was doing the ‘will of the people‘ and wanted to trigger Article 50. After a worthless court case and process costing millions of pounds of public money, we are no further forward. The President of the United States is looking after the security of the America people by trying to prevent a terrorist attack. Yet his authority was challenged in court, again at the cost of the US public.
In both countries the governments were democratically elected, by allowing courts to rule on everyday decisions made by these governments, we are signing an end to democracy as we know it. Opening the door to people who have enough money, when something doesn’t go their way they can challenge it until it does.
That’s not democracy that’s autocratic.