Whos rights? Our rights!

There is a fundamental conflict of interest between MP's representing us, the people, and voting on a transfer of power form the people to government/parliament.

When the United Kingdom spearheaded the creation of the European Court of Human Rights it established the principle that there are inviolable rights that all human beings should have that reside outside the jurisdiction of national governments.

We looked back at the horrors of  two world wars which had just passed, at the way in which those who came through them, from all side,s had been mistreated and damaged at the hands of the nations involved and took the brave decision that for the sake of humanity national governments should be subject to certain restrictions on their behaviour.

By signing us up to the newly created ECHR they presided over one of the biggest and bravest transfers of power from a government, to the people, 




We should recognise and applaud the courage that such a decision takes and what it says about a state's view of it's relationship with it's own people and humanity in general.

Sadly these days many nationalists are ashamed of this important part of our heritage and criticise the decision to curtail the state's right to be the final arbiter over the nature of any persons life within it's reach. That these attacks should come from conservatives (of all kinds) who generally call for less power for the state is in itself ironic, but not really important.

Both the Conservative and UKIP manifestos promise to withdraw us from the ECHR and establish a 'British Bill of Rights'.

Pulling out of the ECHR and putting human rights back in the hands of the state under a 'British Bill of Rights' represents a fundamental change to the relationship between the state and it's people.

There is clearly no way in which this decision, if taken by MP's alone can be considered legitimate within a democracy, the clash of interests between representing the public and voting on a decision to transfer power from the public to themselves puts them in an impossible situation.

The only valid method of making such a decision has to be by a referendum of the people.

Only the people can legitimately tell the state they are willing to relinquish their rights to them. Yet there is no mention in either the Conservative, or UKIP manifesto of such a referendum. In fact if it hadn't been for Liberal Democrat opposition in government we may well already be in a position where this transfer had taken place.

Any party who claims to respect the principle of democracy, and any prospective MP who does likewise, should commit to establishing, in legislation, that such a decision must require the direct approval of the people via a referendum, and indeed should go further to legislate that any significant transfer of power from the people to the state should also be subject to such a criteria.