22 February 2006

Lies, damn lies and Tories!

This is in response to some fabricated lies on notes from a small bedroom.

Pete, nice piece of misrepresentation there, as you well know It wasn't me that wrote the insult, it was devil's kitchen. Sort of sums up the honesty of your entire post.

As for Thatcher not being authoritarian, you are having a laugh. Apart from propping up dictatorships all over the world with her friend Reagan,'like some more tea MR Pinochet?' and the weird ignoring of intelligence of the Argentine invasion in the lead up to the Falklands war (was it engineered to win popularity? The riots and recessions in 1981-82 and the polls indicated she was heading for a massacre otherwise); Apart from all that, she did some very nasty authoritarian things to this country, as follows;

I think the fact Thatcher abolished local government was pretty damn near as authoritarian as you can get, or doesn't that count?

Thatcher didn't like who the metropolitan councils elected cos they elected Labour so she scrapped the lot, GLC etc. Then take away all local govt powers and replace them with unelected QUANGOs. Then remove their revenue raising powers and tell them they can't even spend the money they do raise from things like council house sales to replace the housing stock (this is the reason we have our current housing crisis).

Thatcher centralised everything from Whitehall, it was ridiculous power crazy authoritarianism. Local govt democracy was decimated. No wonder turnout plummeted, it was pointless voting in local elections and people knew it.

What about the unprecedented number of guillotined bills pushed through parliament by the Tories, that led to laws like the Poll Tax? Funny how the Tory dominated house of lords failed to stop any of these things, they only come alive when Labour is in govt, they have opposed more Labour bills under this govt than all the Tory govts EVER in existence.

What about internment and shoot to kill policies in N. Ireland?

What about the ban on Sinn Fein speakers that made us the laughing stock of the world? And because the media dubbed soft spoken actors over Martin Mcguinness and Gerry Adams, it actually improved their media image.

What about politicising the civil service and abolishing the collection of statistics on wealth and income inequality?

What about the manipulation of unemployment statistics etc? 23 changes to how they were recorded, the Tories were famous for it.

What about Section 28?

Oh yeah, Mr Longrider, Thatcher was nice really, just a bit authoritarian with her party no-one else, YOU need a history lesson mate! Thatcher made our lives hell, taking away our freedoms left, right and centre! She made Blair look like a pussy!

It is this Labour government that has given us devolution for Scotland, Wales, London elected by PR, with more to come for local government.

David Miliband is looking at devolving power back to local authorities. We have freedom of information acts, extensive laws on gay rights, equalised age of consent, stopped discrimination in armed forces and abortion rights, transparency in party funding, independence for National Statistics (and yes they did restore the wealth and income stats), human rights act, better public services, poverty reduced (civil liberties are not just for the rich you know), ending race discrimination for public functions. etc. etc.

A lot of what you object to, has come about because of new technology. Are you telling me the Tories wouldn't make use of it? Remember it was the Tories who introduced CCTV. Think of how 9/11 has changed the global threat from terrorism. Are you telling me the Tories, that were more gung-ho about Iraq and George Bush and who introduced internment and shoot to kill for N.Ireland wouldn't have introduced new terror laws? Remember that more Labour MPs voted against Iraq than Tory MPs.

The Tories and Lib Dems would be at least as authoritarian as Labour and probably much much worse if they were in government, you only have to look at their past records. Ironically the Liberals even voted against PR (single transferable vote). It would have become law if they had supported it.


  1. Neil, I suffered personally under the Thatcher regime. A combination of the Poll Tax and 15% interest rates killed my business. I have no time for Thatcher. However, I am perfectly capable of looking back at history and recognising what she wasn't. Nothing she did comes close to the erosion of our liberty as that of the Blair regime.

    I don't need a history lesson as there are no scales on my eyes and I'm capable of recognising that the world does not consist of black and white, but shades of grey.

  2. "She made Blair look like a pussy!"


  3. The Blue Foxxx22/2/06 2:28 pm

    On Miliband:

    "Their latest fad is "double devolution", but this invariably involves taking power from anyone who has dared stand for election. Miliband is unable to list a single power to be given to elected councillors. His benefaction is to unspecified volunteers who are "below the radar" of democracy yet who deserve something called "more control"."

    Simon Jenkins, today' Guardian (22/2/06). Who knows - if Toynbee had written it you might even have blogged it by now.

  4. The Blue Foxxx22/2/06 2:35 pm

    It's been a long time since I agreed with a Guardian Leader column, I kind of hate myself for saying it, but today's sums it up nicely. New Labour has been all about either centralisation or transfer to private bodies (either profit or non-profit); you'll notice (perhaps you won't...) that neither increases local democracy or accountability.

    [Deep breath *but I'm going to do it*]

    'But, one day, perhaps a minister will argue that the best thing for a service would be for it to be delivered at town or district level, overseen by a representative body - one, say, elected every four years. They could call it a "local council".'

  5. The Blue Foxxx22/2/06 2:56 pm

    "I think the fact Thatcher abolished local government was pretty damn near as authoritarian as you can get, or doesn't that count?"

    It would probably count were it to be true. The abolition of metropolitan councils essentially created unitary authorities - much like that created in Brighton in 1997. This is a re-organisation.

    The real corrosive element was the reduction in their power, autonomy and fund-raising capabilities. Not only did this trend continue under New Labour, it actually deepened. That this is continuing can be seen in the lack of choice given to councils over their retention of council housing stock (and if we're talking authoritarian, how about rigging any votes where tenants favour social ie. council provision?) and the removal of power from LEAs. So, if Thatcher destroyed local government, Blair has been dancing on the ashes.

    I'll save you the trouble of replying -- 'The Tories would've been worse', and 'What about the Lib Dems'.

    Being part of this party should mean caring for it; allowing the continuance (and defending it) of this rightist coup of a once-great party, will destroy it.

    Have a look around; everyone in our natural constituency hates us - why else did we need a 'clothes peg' campaign? (Not even that will save us at the local elections) BTW that was a necessary but cynical short term tactic, not a long term strategy.

  6. The Blue Foxxx22/2/06 2:58 pm

    Not defending the abolition of the GLC BTW - the necessity of city-wide government (yes government, not governance, i.e. with some actual political and economic power) quickly became apparent, and the political motivations for the move were embarassingly obvious.

  7. Longrider (I've also posted this on the notes from bedroom blog just in case you have read it there first).

    The reason you need a history lesson about Thatcher, is that you were saying 'ooh she was nice really, just authoritarian in cabinet, believed in the individual freedom, yadda yadda etc.'

    What utter tripe. You mean the same woman who sent the army against the miners and was responsible for the biggest post-war civil disturbances in Britain with her policy of the poll tax, not to mention the inner city riots in every major city in the early Eighties caused by her disastrous monetarist policies.

    Lets talk about real civil liberties. Ask yourself the following and answer honestly;

    Would you rather be gay under Thatcher or Blair?

    Would you rather be a single parent under Thatcher or Blair?

    Would you rather be working poor under Thatcher or Blair with a minimum wage/ guaranteed holidays, tax credits, better funded education and sure start for your children etc?

    Would you rather be a poor pensioner under Thatcher or Blair with winter fuel payments, shorter waiting lists for NHS, free local bus travel, free tv licences, etc?

    This is not just disagreeing with policy, these are fundamental civil rights differences, don't pretend otherwise.

    We are better off than we have ever been in terms of disposable income, poverty has been reduced and this government have introduced devolved power and proportional representation, and freedom of information, human rights, party funding transparency etc. etc.

    This is not to say that this government is not getting some things wrong or that we don't need more devolved power and better constitutional safeguards. WE do, and this has been the case for a long time. There is much more chance of achieving these things under a Labour government than a Tory government. The Tory record on civil liberties is appalling and speaks for itself. Don't be fooled that things couldn't get much worse under the Tories, they most certainly would!

  8. What about internment and shoot to kill policies in N. Ireland?

    Don't be an idiot. The internment policy was abandoned in December 1975 (by a Labour government too, so you can grab a bit of credit).

  9. Yes but it was still Tories who brought internment in.

    What about 'shoot to kill' and the laughable ban on Sinn Fein speakers?

  10. Yes but it was still Tories who brought internment in.

    But it wasn't actually Thatcher, which is what the rest of your post is about. If you're going to complain about Tory lies, it might be an idea to be scrupulously honest yourself, no?

  11. Well it was the Tories that brought internment in and Thatcher that brought in the 'shoot to kill' and sinn fein speakers ban, can you admit that?

    You are clutching at straws mate, to avoid admitting how bad the Tories are on civil liberties.

    I've listed loads of things that Thatcher did to destroy civil liberties, and the only gripe you can manage is that one of the things I mentioned was brought in by earlier Tories rather than specifically Thatcher. My general point was about Tory governments, so internment was relevant as well.

    Do you deny that these things Thatcher and the Tories did were bad for civil liberties? That is the important point being made, not that Thatcher carried out everything personally.

  12. Answer this, in terms of civil liberties would you rather live under a Tory/Thatcher government or a Blair/Labour govt.

    The best way to judge civil liberties is how the weakest members of society were treated, the rich and middle/upper class can generally look after themselves!

    Think of how gay people, the working poor, unemployed, single parents, sick and disabled were treated. Think of the miners, poll tax rioters, non-whites etc. Who do you think they would prefer to live under; Thatcher or Blair? That is the definitive question. What is your answer?

  13. The reason you need a history lesson about Thatcher, is that you were saying 'ooh she was nice really, just authoritarian in cabinet, believed in the individual freedom, yadda yadda etc.'

    This is not what I said. It is a strawman. Therefore, I won't dignify it with further response.

  14. The Blue Foxxx23/2/06 8:49 am

    That is the definitive question. What is your answer?

    No it isn't.

    Civil Liberties:
    'Fundamental individual rights, such as freedom of speech and religion, protected by law against unwarranted governmental or other interference.'

    Your gay rights point is therefore the only relevant one. BTW which government has increased income inequality and removed power from local government?

  15. Internment:
    In Northern Ireland (1971) it was brought in by the Ulster Unionists, probably with support of the Tories.
    In Britian (2001) it was brought in by Labour.

    Shoot to kill:
    Possibly operated in Northern Ireland, but Stalker/Sampson Enquiry found no evidence of a Shoot to Kill policy.
    Definitely Brought in by Labour (Operation Kratos) 2002.

    Ignoring evidence leading to the invation of the Falklands War.
    Deliberate distortion of evidence leading to the Iraq war.

    Both have proped up dictatorships around the world e.g. The Tories in Chile, Labour in Uzbekistan.
    Labour has helped the removal of Saddam in Iraq and Slobodan Milosevic in Yugoslavia. Thatcher helped the distruction of the entire Soviet Union.

    Gay rights:
    definitely considerably better under Labour than the Tories.

    Both have done bad things, but Labour has been generally worse.

  16. Longrider: You did say that Thatcher was 'only' authoritarian in cabinet. Did you not? This obviously required a riposte, because Thatcher was the most authoritarian to the most marginalised members of our society and that is usually how authoritarianism is measured.

    Blue Foxx: Freedom of speech and religion are an important part but only a SMALL part of civil liberties, do you agree?

    Chris: Thanks for writing the most comprehensive answer, I agree with most of your analysis but not your conclusion.

    Internment: We'll call that a draw, though I think the fact that Labour abolished internment both times and the Tories never have, gives it a points win.

    Shoot to Kill: Another draw. Whatever the enquiry says (who believes a word of any of them eh?), it was clear the Tories supported it, never heard of the name Kratos, though it was not as vindictive or widespread as the policy in Ireland and it was in response to much more serious threat (i.e. suicide bombers).

    Intelligence: Call it another draw, I am being generous! The Tories ignored intelligence that would have PREVENTED a war, Labour misrepresented evidence to JOIN a war that was going to happen anyway. Not as bad in my opinion. A points win to Labour.

    Gay Rights: Most definitely a win for Labour (which you acknowledge).

    Rights of working poor, sick, unemployed: Definitely another win for Labour.

    Conclusion: So Labour definitely win on two counts and possibly edge it on another two.

    So it is a 2-0 or arguably (4-0) win to Labour in terms of being better on civil rights.

    Therefore don't indulge in a campaign for civil liberties that is going to bring the Tories back into government because it will definitely make civil liberties much worse. Q.E.D.

  17. The Blue Foxxx24/2/06 1:03 am

    'Blue Foxx: Freedom of speech and religion are an important part but only a SMALL part of civil liberties, do you agree?'

    Indeed - however much of what you say is NO part of civil liberties - it is not a catch all term for redistribution and equality of either opportunity or ends (there are perfectly good and analytically seperate terms for these).

    Plus, of course, New Labour's piss poor record on civil liberties (and your defences of authoritarian policies).

  18. You are exagerating your case. I see a very different Britain to what you see.

    I walk down the highstreet and I don't see the authoritarian country that you talk about. I see new technology that has made my life easier (not necessarily better but easier) and I see people free to go about their daily lives with most of them living in an increasingly prosporous country, especially compared to the dark days of the Tories. Compare a photo of your towncentre, hospital, school, housing estate (any town) taken 10 years ago with today.

    Authoritarianism to me is Soviet Russia or the Nazis. There is just no comparison.

    Freedom of speech and religion are just one part of civil liberties. There is no absolute definition of civil liberties precisely because it means different things to different people. There are the basics obviously, but if a system distorts wages so people cannot earn enough to pay the rent, so they end up homeless. Are they not right to say their civil liberties have been affected?

    As for me defending authoritarianism. I have defended the idea of ID cards and Blair's respect agenda. These are the only two major issues that people here have objected to.

    If ID cards are authoritarian then the rest of the EU must be worse than us. Personally there are lots of countries like Sweden etc that are far free-er than this country. If you are talking about the government's specific proposals, I have accepted that there are problems, but if the Labour party stands on a platform of making the cards compulsory and wins the 2009 election, then I'm afraid that people will have voted for it. However I doubt very much the scheme will get that far because I have accepted your arguments that the biometric technology just doesn't work.

    As for the respect agenda, we are talking about small fines (already accepted for many other offences) and ASBO's, which even the Green party is considering supporting. This is hardly authoritarian in the real sense of the word.

  19. The Remittance Man24/2/06 4:20 pm

    Nobody seems to be commenting on the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill and the unprecedented powers it seeks to give ministers. Sure there are all sorts of nice phrases about ministers not being able to make laws that wil hurt people too much and so on, but the devil, as always, is in the detail. Ministers will be able to change the details of this very act without recourse to parliament. Potentially, that means they could vest yet more unaccountable powers in themselves at a later date.

    This should cause anybody with a sense of the rights of the people deep, deep worries. In fact, if it were a Tory government proposing this law I'm sure Neil would be urging us all onto the streets to burn down Starbucks. Unfortunately his admiration for Mr Blair seems to be blinding him to the really illiberal nature of this bill.

    And even if this government is staffed entirely by angels who wouldn't dream of misusing the powers they are granting themselves, what about the next government, or the one after that or the one in twenty years time?

    Laws, unless specifically repealled, are forever (another reason why I beleive all acts of parliaent should have a two year "sunset clause" as a matter of course).

    This is either one of the most evil peices of legislation ever written, or one of the most incompetent. Sadly neither of these descriptions reflect well on the government.


  20. Neil said -
    "Internment: We'll call that a draw, though I think the fact that Labour abolished internment both times and the Tories never have, gives it a points win."

    What kind of draw is it when you are shown (more than once) to be utterly wrong? And why do you not address in this context the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act of 1974 - described by the Labour Home Secretary who introduced it as 'draconian', which was the first time that imprisonment without charge had been introduced in Britain in peacetime?

    And since when have the Labour Government abolished internment a second time? They were _forced_ to change the terms, and didn't get what they were asking for (thanks to the opposition parties and the few Labopur MPs with a semblance of spine).

    It's hard to have a discussion with someone who thinks that assertion is argument, and evidence is stuff you just make up.

    BTW I assume you think I am a Tory. Wrong again.

  21. "This is either one of the most evil peices of legislation ever written, or one of the most incompetent. Sadly neither of these descriptions reflect well on the government."

    RM, I do agree with you, by all means lets get out on the streets and campaign, but still vote Labour to keep the Tories out.

  22. Pete, I am against internment as well. People should never be locked up without trial. People should never be held on remand either, but we don't live in a perfect world. Even if I give you this point, Labour are still better 2-1 on civil liberties over the Tories.

  23. The Remittance Man27/2/06 7:32 am

    Now, Neil, how would you want me to vote to keep the Tories out? UKIP?

    My personal dream is to have the Tories get back to being economically liberal (flat taxes, school vouchers and the dismissal of approximately 50% of the public sector would be a nice start). Combined with a truely responsible approach to civil liberties (all acts of parliament to be measured against the 1689 Bill of Rights; that means the right to free speech, free association and the right to bear arms).

    We can probably argue my philosphy vs yours for a week; but I think we can agree that objective number one is to get Mr Blair and his chums to realise just how illiberal they are becoming with all their new legislation.


  24. RM: I can understand why the right like to hark back to tradition and the past - because the past was so much nicer to those with privilege. Us plebs knew our place, but just because something was good several hundred years ago, doesn't mean it's any good now. It usually isn't.

    Why on Earth do you think that everyone having access to a gun will improve things?

    You right wing people are so selfish and idiotic sometimes it makes me weep.

  25. The Remittance Man28/2/06 6:12 pm

    I suspect you've never read the English Bill of Rights. It's a bit difficult as the language is 17th Century English and the original draft was written with the recent threat of catholic invasion in mind though later revisions corrected this illiberal faux pas. If you do ever take the trouble to read the document though, I think you may find it familiar. The familiarity stems from the fact that it also forms the foundation of the first ten amendments of the US Constitution, sadly a better known document even in Britain.

    Now many people (myself included) have grave doubts about the current presidency of the US, but that has no bearing on the system of government set up by the founding fathers. In terms of brevity, durability and effectiveness in creating checks and balances, the United States Constitution is one of the better sets of rules for the governence of a country ever written. It also sets down the basic rights of man better than any other document I have read. It certainly beats that immense waste of dead trees, the eu constitutional treaty, into a cocked hat.

    Personally I attribute its success to the fact that it was written by men who had a visceral distrust of state authority and could see that any power, if unrestrained leads to despotism. For some background reading perhaps you should have a look at the writings of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock et al. It would certainly be a good introduction to liberal thought.

    Regarding the ownership of firearms these men understood (from personal experience) that the ultimate guarantee of individual liberty against state oppression was and is an armed citizenry. Governments should fear the people even if only a little; the people should certainly not fear the state.

    And before you trot out the US murder statistics to try and justify gun bans. Misuse of firearms is the preserve of the untrained, the insane and the criminal. These problems can be managed without the need to take away the weapons of the sane and law abiding. For reference I suggest you look at similar statistics for Switzerland. Swiss homes typically contain at least one military issue weapon plus ammunition. On completion of his reserve obligation a Swiss soldier gets to keep his weapon. Private firearms of all types are easily purchased as well. Counting all sources of weaponry, Switzerland has a far higher rate of private gun custodianship than America. Surprisingly, murder rates are far lower than even in Mr Blair's gun controlled UK. This rather does give the lie to the myth that guns kill. Instead of taking the simplistic route of banning weapons under the pretext of public safety perhaps our representatives should take a closer look at the underlying causes of gun deaths before acting.

    Since I cannot always express my thoughts as clearly as I would like and sometimes even appear frivolous you will have to take my word for it that I have reached this position through thought, reading and observation and not simply parroting a particular party line. But I would propose that the former approach is less indicative of idiocy than the latter.

    As to my selfishness? What you take for selfishness is simply a belief that in trying to do "good deeds" the state is far more likley to take my money and waste it than I am. I'll grant that there are certain things a state must do, but they are very few in number. As for the rest the state should keep out of the way. The man in Whitehall does not know best; he is in fact one of the most inefficient and misinformed agents of improvement that you are ever likely to encounter.

    So if thinking like this means I am selfish by your frame of reference, its a charge I can live with. It's certainly not a position reached through lack of consideration.


  26. RM: "In terms of brevity, durability and effectiveness in creating checks and balances, the United States Constitution is one of the better sets of rules for the governence of a country ever written."

    Are you having a laugh? Just look at presidential elections. In a country with 250 million electors, only 53 million is needed to 'win' the election. You don't even need to have the plurality of the vote (remember 2000 election!), or even wait for them to finish counting the vote in Florida!

    There is widespread rightwing bias in the media (even worse than this country because the bias extends to the broadcast media, we have laws to stop this).

    The US is far more unequal than even the most unequal in the EU (the UK). It has levels of infant mortality and life expectancy in its inner cities that rival Bangladesh.

    The US has invaded or meddled in democratic elections in virtually every country in the world.

    Give me EU rules anyday!

  27. "Counting all sources of weaponry, Switzerland has a far higher rate of private gun custodianship than America. Surprisingly, murder rates are far lower than even in Mr Blair's gun controlled UK. This rather does give the lie to the myth that guns kill."

    You are wrong, you should check your GUN FACTS, you are over 20 times MORE likely to be shot dead in Switzerland than you are in the UK.

    Switzerland has a gun homicide rate of 0.5 per 100,000.

    The UK has a gun homicide rate of 0.1 per 100,000.

    Switzerland has a gun suicide rate of 5.8 per 100,000.

    The UK has a gun suicied rate of 0.2 per 100,000.

    See also my UK GUN FACTS.

    Yet you gun nuts continue to pump out your false propaganda because you like playing with guns and don't care who YOU kill. You are selfish and that is why you like the Tories as well!

  28. The Remittance Man16/3/06 10:04 am

    Thank you for pointing me to some more up to date crime figures re the Swiss crime rates, I must have been looking at older numbers both UK and Swiss. I'll go and check out your sources. Do you have up to date figures for Norway? They also have a very high level of firearm ownership. Can you explain the dramatic rise in the numbers of firearms crime in the UK since the various firearms bans though?

    Contrary to your rather hysterical notions I do not take my ownership of firearms lightly. It took me a long time to reconcile the pros and cons. However I finally decided that for various reasons I do wish to own a gun (a couple in fact).

    For one thing, I enjoy target shooting. It is a great way to relax as one is forced to put worries about work, money etc aside if one is to have any chance of scoring. It is also a social sport where I get to meet people, enjoy their company and engage in a little freindly competition in a safe and regulated environment. As an aside if you were to accuse anyone of the people with whom I shoot of "playing" with firearms you are likely to recieve very short shrift. Responsible people treat any potentially lethal device with respect and anyone who fails to do so is asked to leave the range immediately and never return.

    Another reason I have for owning a gun is self defence. South Africa is plagued by violent criminals who have no qualms about using weapons to further their aims. I am fortunate enough never to have been in a situation where I am faced by a person threatening my life. Unfortunately in the last five years I have had two freinds murdered in their home and one who was raped. I don't know whether they would have been spared had they owned a weapon, but I do know that in both cases they had chosen forgo that chance on moral grounds.

    As to your rather shrill accusation that I do not care who I kill, you could not be more wrong. I have no desire to end anyone's life, but should I ever find myself in that position rest assured that he will be an armed bad person who constitutes an immediate threat to either my life or that of someone else and where I could see no alternative solution.

    Turning to your argument about the US constitution you insist on using current events to critique a constitutional document over two hundred years old. Alas you also appar to be allowing idealogical concerns to cloud your maths.

    The 2000 election was avery close race and will remain contentious well into the future. However, according the Guardian's 2004 US Election Special approximately 120 million US voters cast their ballots in a 60% turnout. This gives a total electorate of just over 190 million. Perhaps you were mistaking this with an out of date estimate of the total population, the 2005 estimate I found states 295.7 million for this number). Turning to the election itself, George Bush received 58.9 million votes of the 114.7 million counted at the time of the report (51.4%). John Kerry got 55.4 million votes (48.3% of the same 114.7 million). GWB got both an absolute majority and a majority of the electoral college votes, something even Bill Clinton failed to achieve.

    As to your claim of widespread rightwing bias in the media, of the televison stations only Fox is openly conservative, the others falling into the neutral or slightly left of centre category. The newspapers probably fit the same profile. There are some well known right wing "shock jocks" on radio but given that the US has a great many radio stations I would imagine that this notorious few are well balanced by others of more moderate views.

    As to the regulatory environment in which the US media operates, well, my classic liberal stance means that I belive that within the commonly agreed bounds of decency if you want to broadcast your particular views you should be free to do so. Isn't that part of the attraction of this whole blogging thing afeter all?

    As to the inequality data you quote, please can you supply references or links? It's only fair since you took the effort to do so with the gun crime statistics.

    Finally you state that the US has interferred in the affairs of other countries on numerous occaisions. Yes it has, but how is this germaine to this discussion? You use a slew of facts, some of dubious provenence, to "prove" what exactly? Not one of the points you use has any real connect with the wording of the US constitution and my contention that it is a better example of how to set out the rules for the governance of a country than the one proposed for the eu.

    Look forward to your reply,