Is Britain A Democracy?

The Swiss vote every three months, and take all sorts of decisions. The French People, although not as directly sovereign as the Swiss, vote for all sorts of representatives, frequently (France has as many mayors as the rest of Europe combined, or so. 35,000).

In four years, the USA vote for the president twice (sort of, including the primaries), and the legislative, twice.

Every five years, the French have two presidential elections (the two turns, the first functioning as a national, open primary; many other countries have adopted this system; there has been even vague talk that the USA ought to do the same, as the present system gives too much importance to tiny states!) The French have also two legislative elections.

The Sun Is Setting On The (Extreme) Right Flag. Edinburgh Castle Below.

The Sun Is Setting On The (Extreme) Right Flag. Edinburgh Castle Below.

How many times do the Brits vote in five years? Just once. That day, today, is like a combined legislative and presidential election. And that’s it.

So the French, or the Americans, vote at least four times more than the Brits.

Of course, the Brits do not vote for their head of state. Their future head of state just made a point to deny the Armenian Holocaust, by saluting briskly the (elected) Turkish Caliph, Erdogan, the very day of the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Holocaust. For years, Prince Charles got a multi-million Euros yearly subsidy, from the European Union (supposedly for his organic farming, but obviously, in the greater scheme of things, an unabashed bribe!)

The upper chamber of the legislature in the UK, the equivalent of the Sumerian, Roman, American, and French Senat,e is not democratically elected: it’s the “Chamber of Lords”. There unabashed hereditary coal plutocrats such as Lord Ridley, seat, legislate, and rule. And, more importantly, nefariously influence the world.

Some will say: ’That’s Britain, it does not affect Europe, the USA, the world.’ Unfortunately, it does. Lord Ridley, for example has a whole page of the Wall Street Journal to himself every six months, or so, to explain that, the more CO2, the better (he gets five million dollars or so of income from a coal mine of his English land). The influence of the wealthiest people in Britain (who generally are exempt from taxation) on the USA has amplified into considerable world impact. Reaganism, “trickle-down” economics, was invented in Britain, imposed by Thatcher, and Reagan followed.

British aristocracy, the ultimate form of honorable plutocracy, is a world problem.

The grip of plutocracy in Britain is so strong, that only a few weeks ago did “Labor” propose to tax the wealthiest Brits living in Britain while claiming, very legally, to be overseas. “Labor” also proposed a property tax on multi-million dollars homes (those worth more than three millions). Even then, that tax would be just a tiny fraction of the one paid in New York.

London has become a big financial capital, because financial manipulators are allowed to do there tricks that are unlawful anywhere else (including New York).

I am not the only one to have noticed this.

The Scots did. They want to “Free Scotland From Thieves.”

Want to get rid of plutocracy? Instituting democracy in the British monarchy would be a good first step. Scotland will help that way. Meanwhile “first by the post” “democracy” will keep on advantaging “conservatives”, as it did, for centuries, from sheer fear, and lack of choice. (The reason that Britain did not join France in revolution in the late Eighteenth Century was, paradoxically, because the British “aristocracy”, also known as plutocracy, had a much better grip on Britain than the French aristocracy and church had on the French society.)

A “democracy” where one rarely votes, is no democracy, just a parody.

Patrice Ayme’



Tags: , , , , , ,

25 Responses to “Is Britain A Democracy?”

  1. indravaruna Says:

    Britain is the model country for the Zionist NWO, the Rothschild headquarters still is the City of London and not NYC (who is the Banking capital).

  2. ianmillerblog Says:

    I agree with much of what you say, but not the emphasis. Who cares about Lord Ridley? There are many worse and more influential advocates of coal burning than him. Scottish independence is an interesting thing because it is largely driven by keeping the oil revenues and assuming everyone else will just leave everything else alone.

    As to why Britain did not join the French revolution, Britain and France had been at odds for centuries, so it might have been a harder transfer, and, of course, the French peasant was probably marginally word doff that the English one.

  3. gmax Says:

    Britain is NOT A DEMOCRACY, any question?

  4. ianmillerblog Says:

    The French peasant was marginally worse off. Make a typing mistake when the phone rings and you are in trouble with the so-called spelling corrections!

    One minor further point. Someone has to define “democracy”. There probably is no democracy currently around. Most are republics, the UK is technically a kingdom, and calls itself such. A democracy simply does not work with a big enough population because you never get anything done. Where you vote for a representative to do your voting for you, that is a republic.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      French peasants were not worse off. Completely differently from English peasants, French peasants OWNED the land they worked. That made them richer, attached to their piece of land, and more conservative (so suspicious of the revolutionary minded bourgeois).

      There is indeed NO democracy around, although Switzerland is clearly heading that way.

      I call that a “representative democracy”. The Roman RES PVBLICA, does not define what the “RES PVBLICA” is about. Rome’s Public Thing was immensely complicated. It had a lot of elements of DIRECT DEMOCRACY. One Consul had full powers, just for a month. Tribune of the People were “Sacro Sanct”: touching them brought the death penalty. As I have explained in many essays, the rise of global plutocrats and the private armies they paid, destroyed the Republic. At the time of the Gracchi.

      Had Caesar lived, could he have inverted the trend? I am pretty sure he wanted to. Apparently, Cicero, no slouch, believed him in the end. Caesar would have had to survive the invasion of Persia and Germania he had planned…

      • ianmillerblog Says:

        Agreed, it was the greed of the very rich that destroyed the Roman republic, or Res Publica. But it was not exactly democratic. Caesar could have inverted the trend, but I doubt he would have. He had too much belief in himself, and in fairness, in many case he was probably right, but he was hardly democratic.

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Caesar was more democratic than any imperator afterwards, but for Julian(us), and that was four CENTURIES later (my opinion, from what I read).
          Caesar was head of the Populares, friend of Cicero, very close to his soldiers (most imperators later were not).

          In any case, after what happened under the Gracchi, the situation was desperately screwed up. We are on a similar slope, just now.

          Romans voted all the time. Under the Republic in full, it was certainly much more democratic than anything we have now (after inserting replacing the democratic institutions (what I call democratic institutions), which we have now). It actually surprised me, when I read directly how the Res Publica worked (instead of just reading what historians said about it, as I had done prior).

          • ianmillerblog Says:

            Agreed that the Roman republic was fatally wounded about the time of the Gracchi. I agree we have real problems now. You might try another post later on this issue. Whether or not the situation can be retrieved is a real problem. I still think (fear?) that future resource constraints, global warming, etc, is going to lead to an extreme crisis with public debt, because public debt is easy to get rid of if the economy is growing, but the reverse is true if it is shrinking.

          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            Agreed. Yet:
            Debt can be cancelled with a wave of the hand. Not so the rising, acidic sea.

  5. gmax Says:

    Sure enough, Conservatives are given to be winners by exit polls

  6. Kevin Berger Says:

    “The French peasant was marginally worse off.”
    Aha! Found the Brit.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      English peasants were basically employees, or, more exactly basically serfs. Many fled to the cities where they wandered. That was a crime, so they were sent as “endured servants” to North America. “Endured” comes from the French; en-dur: in HARD, ils endurent…

      The French were more advanced, all too advanced. They owned property, but they had few children. They dumped Canada, under Voltaire’s enlightened guidance, etc. In other words, France was too smart and fair by half.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      History could have been 180 degrees different: voices of mighty politicians in the UK were against being too much against France in the Seven Years World War (1756-1763). They had foreseen what unfolded later (the rise of the USA). They lost to the Pitts’ francophobic hysteria.

      Also if the conniving Marquise de Pompadour, Louis XV de facto PM, had not inverted all alliances…

    • ianmillerblog Says:

      Sorry, you are wrong, if you referred to me – I am not a Brit. Actually, my comment was more induced than based on knowledge – the French peasant revolted, the English one did not, and so in terms of social forces, the French peasant had to be worse off, at least then. However, I accept my knowledge has few facts; the only one I was basing it on was at the time there were serious food shortages for the French peasant due to a number of features, including the odd bad season. Of course all other things were not equal. The consequences, of course, were that the poor social structure in England persisted for far too long.

      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        English peasants were serfs, basically, at the first misstep, they were on their way to the rope or deportation overseas. French peasants were owners: they wanted more property, and, when the Revolution happened, they took it in the closest church, monastery (one of them had a giant steeple made of gold), or castle.

        There was a very long history of peasant revolts in France (the Jacqueries of the Middle Ages).

        So basically the English were beaten dogs, crawling on their bellies, whereas the French were growling at their masters. Louis XVI teied to free-market the price of flour, which led to famine, all the more as that was soon after Iceland’s Laki eruption, which killed more than 300,000 around France alone (from frosts, noxious gases, famine).

        Anyway we now have another five years of Cameronism. It’s going to be fun watching him get out of his crazy European referendum idea, while trying to subdue Scotland by explaining to the Scots they should stay… in the Union…

  7. Kevin Berger Says:


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      There is no doubt that the British establishment, including the media, was behind Cameron. “The Economist” was typical. And people do according to what they believe is true.
      On the face of it, if France behaved economically and even militarily and diplomatically as the UK has, under Cameron, francophobia in the USA would be much higher.
      This being said, in spite of all the austerity talk and facts, Cameron has been loser than the Eurozone.

  8. Laurent Coq Says:

    So as a true politician Cameron announced during his campaign that he will drive England out of Europe, but will not in the end?

    (how come a country can be democratic when the one that they elected has to then ask HRH’s blessing 🙂 )

    • ianmillerblog Says:

      As I understand it, and I could be wrong, Cameron has consistently stated he wants to renegotiate some terms. He has also stated there will be a referendum on the issue. A referendum is democratic in my book.

      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Cameron will be unable to renegotiate anything significant, because of what happened before. France, The Netherlands, and Eire turned down the proposed European Constitution in referenda. Sarko the First had then considerable egg on his face. He scrambled to write a “MINI-Constitution”, which did not have some of the offending elements. Then the powers that be decided that referenda were not needed that time. Eire voted no, and was told to revote the right way, lest they wanted no more money. Eire obeyed.

        Everybody’s nerves got frayed, and fried.

        The UK has special dispensations and favors. On one hand, the Brits claim they don’t need Europe, and have this colossal GDP, larger than France. Then they claim they are poor, and they want to pay much less than France. They are out of Schengen, and have no ID papers, then get flooded by illicit immigrants whom they use as slave workers, then…

        So I think Cameron is not going to get more sympathy from the rest of the EU than Greece. If he wants out, he can get out, and he will be ruined. In particular France and Germany have had up to here with the free riders…

        • ianmillerblog Says:

          Hey, Patrice, I never said Cameron would succeed, merely that he had said he was going to try. I agree he won’t get far, but he could do some good by getting some of the sillier Brussels regulations changed. My view is Britain has a much worse future outside the EU.

          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            Sorry I misunderstood, Ian. I do agree too, that Cameron could do much good by fighting the silly stuff. Brussellocracy is insufferable, and needs to be rolled back.

            Cameron wants to get back some national powers. His only imaginable ally is FRANCE. However, France is irritated by the diminution of the UK Defense capability, and the fact all European Defense is starting to be a French affair. Defense is one sector where France has been traditionally allied to Britain, and could force the rest of Europe to pay for them.

            However, the UK would simply stop existing, in short order, if England would exit the EU. (Scotland, and then the others, would leave the UK, apply to the EU.)

            So this referendum stuff makes no sense: Cameron may as well have a referendum on having a Parliament.

What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: