Slugger has highlights from Iain Dale's picking up on the Irish Daily Mail getting hold of a copy of an email. The email was sent from a UK diplomat in Dublin following a briefing from the Irish government. It lists the various underhand methods the government planned to use to get the answer they wanted from the referendum and let me tell you it's a strategy Robert Mugabe would be proud of.

You kind of expect a government to set the date they feel would be most suitable, but they've also been found to have been deliberately and consciously misleading the public and their opponents into believing it was a date much later than the date they had planned.

They're practically rejoicing about the fact that the document is "largely incomprehensible to the lay reader", which is no small help to a government whose inherently dishonest aim "is to focus the campaign on overall benefits of the EU rather than the treaty itself". Could that be because there are no tangible benefits in the constitution treaty itself? As the 'No camp' has pointed out, the Republic's place in the EU is secure and a no vote will not change that. What it will do is let the people have a say in what shape the EU takes, rather than having it decided in an undemocratic and unaccountable manner by a remote and powerful elite behind closed doors in Brussels.

The EU are obviously worried by this whole pesky exercise. The EC has promised to 'tone down or delay' any announcements from Brussels 'that might be unhelpful'. A lie of omission is still a lie, but what do you expect from an entity that, when they realised people didn't want their superstate, scribbled out the word "constitution" and replaced it with the much more vague and fluffy "treaty". Let's not forget that the punishment of the French and Dutch voters for defying their governments and exercising their democratic rights on the first vote was to be denied a second.

As an aside, all this makes me wonder what right the EU has to demand potential new members meet certain standards of democracy when the EU itself is one of the most undemocratic (in attitude and procedure), scummy and deceitful governmental institutions in existence anywhere in the so-called civilised world.

Read more »

Constitutional Reform is afoot. In the upper house, recent reports suggest Michael's longing for an elected Lords or UK senate may eventually be satisfied . Meanwhile, Michael himself has flagged up rumours that elections to the House of Commons may be shifting towards an Alternative Vote system (think STV for single-seat constituencies).

Elected Lords and Commons Legitimacy

I think I've come round to the idea of an elected Upper House as a 'least worst' option, despite the prospect of the extension of party politics, career politicians and the associated traits that tend to go along with these to be an extremely strong counter-argument. Despite that, I can't see those self-same parties and career politicians being put off by my fears so lets assume it's a goer. The debate then moves on to how the upper chamber would be elected. While the obvious option is to elect all the senators, another option on the table is an 80% elected chamber. Where the other 20% of senators would come from I don't know (I hope we're past the idea of government/party appointees).

One of the problems with an elected senate (aside from my personal distaste for party politics), especially if it is to be elected using Proportional Representation, is that it could lead to a challenge to the primacy of the House of Commons, since PR could make the senate more accurately reflective of the wishes of voters. Why then, should it not have more power commensurate with that fact?

Read more »