Did You Know? The Remainers Essential Check List by Mike Clitherow

?????   DID YOU KNOW   ?????

The Remainers Essential Check List

A FEW BASIC FACTS ABOUT THE EUROPEAN UNION

WHICH MAYBE YOU HAD NOT CONSIDERED

READ – THEN DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH – DECIDE  

A CHANCE TO CHALLENGE ASSUMPTIONS

1) The people who instigate the laws are not elected by anyone.

The European Commission is effectively the EU’s government and the only ones that can propose legislation. The 28 commissioners (one from each country) are not elected.

The UK’s commissioner is Sir Julian King (be honest had you ever heard of him???).   Of course he is pro Europe but to be fair even if there is a new law proposed which in his opinion does not suit the UK - he is but one voice amongst twenty eight –

Good for the UK??? 

28 non-elected people are the only ones allowed to propose laws for 512,600,000 people. Democracy????

2) The Council of Ministers – part of the legislative process - headed by President Donald Tusk meets in secret and is not obliged to publish their discussions. Tusk, another appointment that the UK had very little if any input into.

BTW re this arrangement NO political grouping or country in the Free World (those not Communist or Dictatorships) would allow this way of working particularly as this select group sets the strategic direction of the Block.  Yes the good news is that UK has one voice out of 29.

But is that Democracy – is it in the best interests of the UK??

3) All MEPs from all countries have to be members of one of the

E U’s (currently nine) political parties - loose groupings of people with a similar political stance.

Within these parties the British MEPs nit in the majority except with the EEFD - 41 members with 18 Brits. EPP (the biggest) has a total of 217 members. With the majority of parties British interests are unlikely ever to to be the full focus of that grouping.

 4) Mostly British MEPs are members of EU political parties that are not the ones with most members – so less block votes. British interests therefore are further watered down or can easily be ignored.

 5)    The EPP - by far the largest party in the EU Parliament with 217 members - got their candidate Jean Claude Juncker appointed President of the EU Commission.  Yes after the decision was made there was a perfunctory vote in the EU Parliament - but as always smaller countries and/or newer members tended to “go with the flow” so as not to be seen to be “rocking the boat” – particularly if their country was a nett recipient of EU funding.

The UK PM objected as did Hungary’s but once again the UK’s views were overruled.

Had anyone in the UK heard of J C J before the appointment - was anyone in the UK given a choice – Democracy??

Voting for MEPs across EU countries varies & is therefore not democratic.

a)     Each vote is not of equal value

– A vote per person in Luxembourg (J C J’s home country) is nine times the value of each person’s vote in the UK.

       - A vote in Malta is twelve times the value of a vote in the UK.

         Malta by the way is a nett recipient of EU funding.

        The UK of course is a massive nett cash contributor.

There are several other examples across the EU of this imbalance.

Calculation based on the number of MEPs per country as a proportion of the national population.

b)    In the UK for EU elections we use a Closed List System - you cannot vote for a person only a party. This is not so in other countries. In a UK General Election you can vote for the person you wish to represent you – not so in the EU election.

c)     The age a person can vote is determined by each country based on each country’s National Parliamentary criteria. Considerable variations.

ALL FOR ONE AND ONE FOR ALL??

  

6)  A UK MEPs vote does not count for much. UK MEPs represent only 13% of all the votes possible in the EU parliament - that’s if all UK MEPs vote the same way (no guarantees on that one). In reality it only needs 16 countries - or a few countries representing 65% of the EU population getting together to get a “qualified majority vote” to go against the best option for the UK. There is the very occasional possibility of a Veto on some very limited issues such as national defence but if one reads the small print the EU hierarchy want to further eliminate the current opportunities to use the Veto.  Since 2009 up until 2017 (more recent records not found) the UK has always been the country with the highest number of losses overall when analysing the results of votes in the EU parliament.  Nearly double the percentage of any other country

– Are the UK views always so wrong or are there EU priorities that are just not suitable or beneficial for our country?

7)  Voting by MEPs anyway can be perfunctory as the laws decided by the unelected European Commission are what get voted on. Each MEP can have a maximum of two minutes only to voice a point of view.  That’s their only input on the whole process except for ineffectual conversations amongst themselves. Again many non UK MEPs will vote for a given law anyway as it either does not affect their country directly and/or does not “rock the boat” and put them in a bad light with the senior Brussels bureaucrats.

Re Above:

A dependency culture seems to have developed among those countries which have endured prolonged periods of austerity and recession and are nett recipients of EU funding (leading to an increasing sense of dependency and reliance on the EU and sense of requirement to comply with its strictures). Not in any way some planned deviation or corruption just the reality.

 Is this true democracy and does it help the UK?

 8)                 The EU parliament (the MEPs) has no power to initiate or repeal legislation. Effectively the Parliament is there to rubber stamp decisions/laws handed down to them.  Laws are imposed without a democratic mandate - it appears to some to suit the few at the expense of the many so as not to go against the master federalist plan.

 9)                 The UK has paid in circa 9 billion pounds sterling NETT to the EU in each of the last two years (Nett = after deducting our rebate and EU payments back to us to their selected UK organisations/enterprises).

 10)            The gross figure our EU bill comes to is circa £18.5 billion.  We get a rebate on this to partially “even out” the huge concessions to French agriculture – thank you Maggi. Then the EU give us back some of our money for certain enterprises - approximately £4.5 - £5.5 billion PA (figs vary depending on source of info).  The EU decides who in the UK gets what & when. Then the recipent can put up a Blue plaque so everyone is lead to believe the money came exclusively from the EU. This is of course fake by any definition. The money may have been routed via Brussels but the original source was from UK tax payers.

 11)            Many of these UK taxpayer payments routed via the Brussels bank go to extremely important and worthwhile causes and organisations. I would however like you to consider one very small personal experience which reinforces the lack of control and honesty on this allocation of our money once it gets to the EU.

A friend of mine who is single and owns several houses which he rents out (let’s say he is “comfortably off”) wanted with one large 1930’s property which he lived in to make certain structural changes to enable him to rent it out more easily when he moved on. His financial adviser told him not to bother financing it himself as due to the area in Wales this house was located in he could get the money from the EU. He did and of course is very happy about it.  On a much larger scale one reads about the huge scams for EU money in Sicily Hungary and many other places I don’t have details or personal experience but I ask you to consider this morally corrupt way of operating. Are there not better things our UK taxes could be spent on?

 12)            In the period 2014 – 2016 there were 17 of the 28 countries who were NETT recipients of EU funding.  Apparently the targeting for 2019 is to reduce the number of countries who will be nett recipients of EU funding (no guarantees).  By definition therefore after allowing for our contribution to run the Brussels and Strasbourg set ups - the UK has been and will continue to subsidise many countries in the EU. Is this a good way to spend our money? Particularly when there is evidence that at least one country in Europe has used their EU regional subsidy to make it attractive for UK business to relocate there. So we are paying money to incentivise companies to take jobs away from the UK.  This money is of course over and above the .07% of GDP we use to help countries around the World.

 13)            Many reliable independent sources and indeed the EU’s own records demonstrate their inability or unwillingness to adapt or be flexible in a crisis or an unforeseen event.  One significant illustration of this is the “DO IT OUR WAY” approach with the euro.  By not allowing countries to restructure or return to their own currencies and devalue to attract inward investment and activity contributed towards distress, high unemployment & social unrest amongst the poorer countries in Southern Europe. This is a clear illustration the “one size fits all” does not work when applied to such a diverse group of countries. It has become clear the EU’s Federalist plan is more important to them than the destruction of individual countries well-being and that of their populations.  The EU one size fits all always fails for many – unless you are the wealthy so called “partner”.

 14)            The EU is increasingly more focused on its own political project and its own powerbase, than it is in the interests of the peoples of Europe. This - as everyone who follows the news will realise - has led to a rise of tensions and greater Euroscepticism across the Continent.

 15)            There is a view from respected well-meaning people about “Changing the EU from the inside”. The record however going back many years confirms that the EU is focused on its Federalist plan and real change will not happen; many placating words but never any fundamental changes of direction or flexibility. An obvious example is David Cameron who wanted very modest changes - all were rebuffed.

 16)          The EU structure is purposely geared to promote the wellbeing and growth of multinational companies at the expense of small and medium size operators.  Easier to control and monitor one big player v 100 medium sized organisations; OK not a written policy as such - however looking at the facts over recent years this is the only conclusion. Multinational companies spend millions of euros lobbying the EU to gain advantages over their competitors and help market domination. A few names in this category are Google - Microsoft – Gen. Electric - Deutsche Bank - Siemens – Huawei (where have we heard that name before?)  Volkswagen (they got found out recently re their testing regime without too much downside) plus many others. As you will be aware, Lobbying at this level means personnel employed to present/push involvement in EU projects, to increase their own domination and market share. These techniques also include a certain amount of entertaining. Yes lobbying goes on with all governments including the UK but the comparative levels of money spent and overall effort and results pales into insignificance.  Yes business is business BUT where does this leave the UK’s SMEs?

 17)            The number of EU laws that come automatically into UK law or where UK laws originate from EU is very high and rising. Difficult to put an exact figure on this with claims as high as 70% down to 40% (appears to be a case of interpretation and the slant the particular source wants to put on the subject)Of course many of these laws are improvements and well meant. BUT what about full UK parliamentary scrutiny??? Or is Westminster to end up as a regional council office only?

 18)           Once every month for four days only the whole EU parliament – personnel and paperwork – moves south from Brussels to Strasbourg in France about 5 hours travelling time.   Then on the fifth day moves back again.  Cost per year is estimated at between £150mil - £170mil. That’s without a calculation of the work output and efficiency lost on 24/30 days lost every year through travel. Full salaries and expenses are of course paid during this move.

Why??? The only rationale I can find in my research is a quote that “its historic and it was to keep the French happy when the EU was set up” –

Efficient & cost effective????

To me it’s like moving the Westminster parliament to Newcastle for four days once a month. Would we Brits stand for that??

  

Source of above Information.

Mainly EU’s own website - Europa.eu

Particularly sections

-           Institutions and bodies  

-          Europa.eu/European-union index.en

-          How the EU works – EEAS – Europe-eu

-          Europa.eu/European – union index _ en

Info direct from the EU was accepted as fact - Doesn’t need to be checked – does it?

All other sources were cross checked

Other reference points

-          Politics.stackexchange.com – how – is – the - EU – governed

-          Congressional Research Service – EU questions and answers.

-          Wikipedia (various sections)

-          The UK in a changing Europe

-          Who pays what – BBC news website

(Any info used from this BBC source was thoroughly cross checked

 To confirm neutrality.)

-          reddit.com - givers and takers

-          quora.com

-          Full fact-org/Europe – UK’s fact checking charity.

 CONCLUSION

Eighteen random facts above:  some of the reasons why 17.4million people voted to leave the European Union. 

Test me! – Please check them all out with some in depth unbiased research.

If you take this seriously - during your research also look at other factors such as:

- The very low income tax 330,000 people directly employed by the EU pay. None of this tax by the way goes back to the person’s home country but back into the Brussels coffers. Plus generous pensions at age 63

 (What’s the UK starting age for pensions going up to?)

SO What’s the justification for this income comfort zone?

- The fact that the EU’s own internal auditors (No not external unbiased auditors which are used by all companies or organisations across Europe) have not fully signed off the EU’s accounts for many years.

Why? “Significant errors found” is their feedback - Refer back to point 11 above.

-         People have said “why do you want to leave Europe” - giving the impression the EU is Europe – This is a common mistake we don’t want to leave Europe Just the Political grouping called the European Union.

If after reading all the above and you do your own independent research and cross checking and still feel the UK should remain in the EU I will be very surprised. Of course if any of the above information you feel is not accurate please send me details with the cross reference of your legitimate source.

Mike Clitherow

mikeclith@gmail.com

European Union Translations by Mike Clitheroe

TRANSLATIONS OF THE GOVERMANT & MEDIA SPEAK

IN USE WHENEVER LEAVING THE E.U. IS PRESENTED OR DISCUSSED

Many phrases and “punchy” terminology is being used all the time in connection with the UK leaving the E.U. These words can take on different meanings depending on who is using them and in what context. Often such phrases are used in a pseudo dramatic way and particular emphasis is introduced to try and disguise or deflect from what is really going on. Most Politicians particularly Mrs May & some of her Government are guilty of what can only be described as public deceit hiding behind these clichés. The opposition front bench are even worse.

Also all the main TV channels particularly the BBC and some Newspapers use the words below to make the public think the interviewer/reporter really knows what they are talking about and are communicating all the facts in an impactful way – BUT for me they are just spinning their own personal political agenda and/or that of the company that pays their wages. Balanced reporting – Don’t hold your breath.

 This is an interpretation of what these regularly used words actually mean.

This shorthand way of speaking can be considered an attempt to “Brain Wash” the public. -   Mike C.

“CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS”    = Remainers are not getting their own way.

“CRISIS IN OUR COUNTRY” = Remainers are not getting their own way.

“WE NEED A PEOPLES VOTE” = we need to reverse the 2016 referendum result.

“CRASH OUT” = Well it sounds dramatic and if we say it enough times people will think leaving the EU CLEANLY will be a major issue for ever. We must Brain Wash the little people.

“CLIFF EDGE” = Makes the little people think of Beachy Head/ White Cliffs of Dover and Suicide. Say it often enough and it will be a major contribution to Project Fear.

NO NO NO – don’t listen or allow anyone to explain any positives about leaving – WE ARE IMPORTANT, we know its suicide cos? ……well we just know that’s why.

“PEOPLE DID NOT KNOW WHAT THEY WERE VOTING FOR IN 2016”

= They gave the wrong answer – how dare they!

“PEOPLE DID NOT KNOW WHAT THEY WERE VOTING FOR IN 2016”

 = Now we have repeatedly put forward only one side of the argument and played down any positives the little people will “give in” and change their minds.

“PEOPLE MUST BE ALLOWED TO CHOOSE BETWEEN MAY’S DEAL OR REMAIN”       

= The people must choose between Remain and Remain.

“THE PEOPLE MUST BE ALLOWED TO CHOOSE BETWEEN MAY’S DEAL - REMAIN - NORWAY OPTION – COMMON MARKET 2 =    we can manage to split the country four ways instead of two. But we win as its all remain really.  We can’t allow No Deal

On any referendum as too many people will want this.

“WE NEED TO EXTEND ARTICLE 50” = we need more time for Project Fear to work.

“MAY’S DEAL” = Junker & Tusk & Barnier’s deal (consultant input from L. Varadker)

                                                                                      May is just our field sales agent.

“MAY’S W. A. IS THE BEST OPTION” = We have got 500 pages of legal text to confuse the little people and divide opinion between the best legal minds in the country.

“THE NEGOTIATIONS WITH BRUSSELS WERE/ARE VERY COMPLEX” = we had to say YES to whatever they wanted in 27 languages.

“THE NEGOTIATIONS WITH BRUSSELS WERE/ARE VERY COMPLEX” = Do not trouble your little heads we know best!

“CONFIDENT WE GOT THE BEST DEAL POSSIBLE” = David Cameron showed us the best way to negotiate with the EU so we knew what to do.

“WITHDRAWAL AGREEMENT” = those nice people in Brussels produced it for us

It’s a complex way to reverse the 2016 referendum result. All we had to do was say YES YES and then YES.

“WITHDRAWAL AGREEMENT” = Pay Up and stay under our control.

“EU DEMOCRACY” = YOU will do as you are told.

“WE NEED MORE VOTES IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS” = eventually something will stick – it does not matter what or that it goes completely against our party manifesto and the referendum result. Anyway I have a holiday booked so let Marxist in Chief Corbyn take over.

“A DEEP AND SPECIAL PARTNERSHIP” = we like someone else making the Laws for us. Let’s have EU entanglement like we never left.

“THE GOOD NEWS IS THIS W. A. TAKES BACK ALL CONTROLS” = Takes then back to the EU

– ECJ Jurisdiction – Freedom of Movement – Large payments – All CONTINUE

“WE NEED TO ADDRESS THE BACKSTOP” = we need to distract attention from all the other atrocious parts of the deal.

 “WE MUST ALL COME TOGETHER AND FIND A COMPROMISE = A Con Promise

We must continue to renege on our parties Manifesto’s (labour & conservative) and cheat on the 17.4mil using a major Fudge to confuse things to make sure the EU remain in control. Anyway Mr Corbyn will know what to do.

“IT’S THE BEST DEAL AVAILABLE” = It’s a deal tailored by the EU to suit the EU so it must be good they are good at this stuff.

“NO DEAL IS BETTER THAN A BAD DEAL” = this deal was tailored by the EU to suit the EU so it must be “Not a Bad Deal” – they know about these things.

“MALTHOUSE COMPROMISE or MAYBE THE EAA OPTION” = Confuse them

“NO DEAL WOULD BE A DISASTER” = Well that’s what all the Remainers say and although I have never really researched it they must be right as there is a lot of them in Parliament.

“NO DEAL WOULD BE A DISASTER” = Well it needs thought and effort and being positive and I am far too busy thinking about myself to really challenge this and do some real research - so I am jumping on the easy bandwagon.

“NO DEAL - CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN” = Brexit cannot be allowed to happen. We are important intellectuals we do not listen to the Little People or any economist or business person who does not agree. We know everything.

“THE EXPERTS SAY NO DEAL WIL BE A DISASTER = Well we know no country has left the EU before and therefore there are no experts on the subject. But let’s follow the word of the “so called economists” and Mark thingy from the BOE – OK they do not present their whole business models for scrutiny as of course they have engineered forecasts that will prove what they want them too - plus we can use this stuff to scare people into a Remainer frame of mind.

“LET’S HAVE A BALANCED TV DEBATE” = 4 Remainers & 1 Leaver

“RECESSION – JOB LOSSES – HOUSE PRICE CRASH = Why will the economy not do what it’s told to do.

“DESPITE BREXIT” = Why will the economy not help the cause.

“DESPITE BREXIT” = Play down any positives we can’t let Brexit been seen in a good light.

“HARD BORDER” = any excuse will do. Just keep saying it can’t be overcome the Brits under May will just cave in.

“THE BACKSTOP IS AN INSURANCE POLICY” = Cunning plan to keep the UK locked in forever. They will never notice.

“WE RESPECT THE REFERENDUM RESULT” = we are looking at every way to reverse the result. Why does it matter? I lie about lots of things isn’t that what politicians are supposed to do – anyway the little people will not notice.

“EU IDEA OF UK APPROVAL” = Theresa May & Oliver Robbins (what 17.4mil people want can be ignored we only talk to the pushovers.)

 “DOING A BRUSSELS”  = Dig your heels in on Day 1 – Tell them the programme of events without discussion – Steamroller the decision you want before they know what they actually agreed too. Then keep saying Non; Nein – Then as a last resort use English and say NO NO NO !!!

“CABINET UNITY” = they do what I tell them.

“DEPT. FOR EXITING E U = Brilliant cover and a pretend front, so the real negotiations to stay in the EU can be conducted behind the scenes.

“UK FISHING RIGHTS” = your fish are our fish unless we say otherwise.

“EU FUNDING” = you give us a lot of money - We give some of it back to certain enterprises WE decide who, what and when. Then they can put up a Blue plaque so everyone knows the money came from the EU.  Confuse the little people.

“BENEFITS OF EU MEMEBERSHIP” = Of course your UK vote does not count for much. Your MEP’s represent only 13% of all the votes - that’s if those crazy people all vote the same way Ha Ha. So we only need 16 countries or countries representing 65% of the EU population getting together to get “qualified majority vote” to go against your wishes. Of course there is the Veto on some very limited things but read the small print that’s all changing soon.

BENEFITS OF EU MEMBERSHIP” = you can relax!! We make your laws, we control your life, we tell you what you can and can’t do – don’t blame us, the book 1984 was written by some British guy – BUT you do get free roaming charges.

Mike Clitherow                                                                              

Letter to your Member of Parliament

A Must read- from one of your loyal but disillusioned constituents

Dear [         MP     ],

Please see below a list which compares a No Deal with the current Withdrawal Agreement.

My colleagues and a wide group of like-minded friends, on whose behalf I am writing believe this is a completely accurate analysis. We hope you will confirm by return that this is also your interpretation.

Given that:

(i)         By law we leave the EU on 29^th March 2019;

(ii)        The UK Parliament gave the decision concerning the UK’s continued membership of the EU to the British people, who voted in a referendum to leave the EU;

(iii)       The UK Government committed to implement the referendum result;

(iv)       You were elected on a manifesto commitment to implement the referendum result; and

(v)      Article 50 enshrines the possibility of leaving the EU without a withdrawal agreement –

We feel therefore it is your duty to honour this, such that the UK leaves the EU on 29^th March 2019 with no withdrawal agreement (unless a substantially different withdrawal agreement which is beneficial to the UK is reached in the short time available between now and 29^th March 2019).

Under Article 50 no withdrawal agreement is required after 29^th March 2019. The UK leaves the EU automatically on 29^th March 2019. At this late stage, why ratify any withdrawal agreement which contains any provision that is detrimental to the UK?

Having left the EU on 29^th March 2019 with no withdrawal agreement, the UK can then decide whether to enter into free trade and other agreements on terms that are beneficial to the UK.

We are now looking forward to you confirming in writing that you will honour all the above, which we feel is your duty as our elected Parliamentary representative.

Yours sincerely,

No Deal v Withdrawal Agreement

No Deal (No Withdrawal Agreement)

- 2016 referendum result respected and implemented

- UK democracy restored

- UK sovereignty restored

- UK independence restored

- UK fishing rights restored

- UK can set own trade policy

- UK can set own immigration policy

- UK can negotiate and implement free trade agreements

- UK laws set by UK Parliament

- UK cases dealt with by UK courts

- UK Freedom

- UK can reinvigorate good relations with the Commonwealth and the wider world

- Certainty

- No more endless Brexit debates

LEAVE MEANS LEAVE

-          Some short term confusion & and pain – medium and long term freedom

and growth on our own terms.

Current Withdrawal Agreement

- 2016 referendum result delayed, not respected, or not implemented

- EU law continues to apply

- ECJ jurisdiction continues to apply

- UK has no say in EU laws passed

- UK a ‘colony of the EU’

- Undemocratic

- ‘Divorce payment’ of £39 billion

- Payments to the EU continue

- Years of protracted negotiations with the EU

- Years of uncertainty

- UK unable to exit without EU consent

- Triple lock of transition period, backstop and ‘future partnership’ to prevent UK from

   leaving EU control

- Possible regulatory annexation of Northern Ireland

- UK locked into EU model of high regulation and slow growth

- UK locked into EU direction of travel with no say

- UK unable to enter free trade agreements with the rest of the world

- UK unable to regain own fishing rights

- UK unable to control own borders

- ‘Backstop’ or ‘no backstop’ - indefinite ‘EU colony status’ or time limited ‘EU colony status’?

-  Endless Brexit debates continue

THE WORST DEAL IN HISTORY

Conclusions

See the latest update - Conclusions - Updated 11th February 2019

John Strafford interviewed by Unlock Democracy Podcast

Listen to this interview done at the Tory Party Conference.  It includes comment about democracy and the European Union and Candidate Selection.

So you think we live in a democracy?

At the Unlock Democracy Fringe meeting at the Tory Party Conference on 2nd October 2018. George Freeman MP is on the right.   Chairman is Alexander Runswick of Unlock Democracy

Speech Unlock Democracy 2^nd October 2018

by John Strafford

I propose that:

No political Party should be registered with the Electoral Commission or its successor unless it has a democratic constitution which can be amended by a majority of its members in General Meeting on the basis of One Member One Vote. 

Why am I proposing this?

Both of our main political parties are undemocratic organisations run by small oligarchies with much wrong with them, but I am going to concentrate on one particular issue within the Conservative Party, because we are at the Conservative Party conference - that is the selection of parliamentary candidates.

Unlock Democracy campaigns for Proportional Representation, an elected House of Lords, transparency in lobbying, a cap on donations to political parties, but if it is successful in getting all of these reforms we will still not have a fair democracy if we don’t have a fair selection process for parliamentary candidates.

In 1998 the Conservative Party brought in a Constitution and all power was taken by Conservative Central Office and the hierarchy that run it.   Why did it do this? 

One main reason was as follows:

Pre 1998 the local Constituency associations were virtually autonomous.   Although there was an official Party candidates list, if the local Association wished to invite someone for selection who was not on the list, or a local person they could do so.   The candidates then went forward to a General Meeting of the Association to select the candidate. Constituency Associations had effective control of their candidates in a General Election.   This issue came to a head in the General Election of 1997 when CCHQ sent Robin Hodgson (Chairman of the National Union) to Tatton to ask the Constituency Association to drop Neil Hamilton as their candidate.   They refused and Hamilton was defeated by Martin Bell.

In the new Constitution of 1998 CCHQ were determined to take control of candidates and brought in a rule that unless you were on the candidates list you could not stand.

This came to a head just before the General Election of 2005 when Howard Flight had the Conservative Whip withdrawn by Michael Howard.   Not only was the whip withdrawn but he was not allowed to be a candidate even though his association wanted him to stand again.   The Party Chairman went to the Association and told them that unless they dropped Howard Flight they would be put into “Support Status” and CCHQ would take over.   The Association backed off and Howard Flight was dropped.

So now, if you want to be a parliamentary candidate for the Conservative Party you have to be on the Candidates list, but who controls the candidates list?

The Party Board, which consists of people like the Party Chairman, Deputy Chairman, Chairman of the 1922 Committee etc, none of whom are elected to their positions by all the members of the Party, appoints a Chairman of Candidates who appoints members of the Candidates Committee.   This Committee not only determines who can be on the Candidates list but also the process to be followed to become a candidate.   They manipulate the process, e.g. the “A” list, and at the time of the last General Election found that they didn’t have enough candidates, but barred some candidates such as Syed Kemall and David Campbell-Bannerman from standing and ended up imposing candidates on constituencies or giving constituencies just three names to choose from.

In determining who shall be a Conservative candidate a small group of people are determining who shall be members of Parliament and effectively who shall have the chance of being in government.   That is not democracy.   We still have rotten boroughs!

Did the 1998 Constitutional changes bring success?   In the twenty years since then there have been five General Elections. The Conservative Party won one.   In the 20 years prior to the Constitution, when the members ran the conference, ran the Conservative Political Centre, determined who their parliamentary candidates should be etc., there were five General Elections.   The Conservative Party won four of them!

If we want real democracy this issue has to be tackled.    The Conservative Party does not have an Annual General Meeting to which all members of the Party are invited. The Party Chairman, Treasurer, Chairman of the Candidates Committee and Chairman of the Policy Forum are all unelected and unaccountable to the membership of the Party.   Changing the Party’s constitution is an almost impossible task.   Only by regulation from outside are we likely to get a democratic Party.   That is why I have made this proposal.