Britain's fake democracy: what you need to know.

In "Tragedy and Hope" Carrol Quigley had much to say about the British "democracy."

Boris Johnson is out, Liz Truss is in. Somehow, of all the leadership talent that's available in Britain, Liz Truss came up as top of the crop. As always, the media are drumming up excitement about the exciting change. We're averting disaster and now everything will be super-awesome:

Apart from the shrinking cohort of unsuspecting consumers of corporate media narrative, I doubt whether many Britons expect anything much from the new PM. If anything, she is almost universally despised. So how can it be that a supposed democracy keeps promoting lesser and lesser talent to run the nation? The fact is that behind the establishment's self-serving facade, Britain is not truly a democracy. 

In his 1966 book, "Tragedy and Hope," professor Carrol Quigley had much to say about the British political system. Quigley was a trusted insider in the west's political establishment and a mentor to the future U.S. President Bill Clinton. As a privileged member of the Council on Foreign Relations, he was allowed to peruse their archives (which are strictly closed to the public and to most CFR members) for two years which enabled him to write one of the most eye-opening accounts of our modern history (1890-1965). In fact, when the establishment finally understood the revealing nature of the book, it was abruptly withdrawn from sales and all remaining copies were destroyed, together with the printing-plates. Here's what Dr. Quigley had to say about the British political system, in his own words:

• “…the greatest difference between Britain and the US rests in the fact that the former has no constitution. This is not generally recognized (461)”

• “… many of the relationships which are covered by conventions are based on precedents that are secret (such as relationships between monarchy and Cabinet, between Cabinet and political parties, between Cabinet and civil service, and all the relationships within the Cabinet) and in many cases, the secrecy of these precedents is protected by law under the Official Secrets Act… (462)”

• “It is seriously stated in many books that the Cabinet is responsible to the House of Commons, and controlled by it. In truth, the Cabinet is not controlled by the Commons but the reverse. … The fact that there are no primary elections in Britain and that party candidates are named by the inner clique of the party is of tremendous importance and is the key to the control which the inner clique exercises over the House of Commons, yet it is rarely mentioned in books on the English political system. (463)”

• “There is also no separation of powers. The Cabinet is the government and ‘is expected to govern not only within the law, but, if necessary, without law or even against the law’ There is no limit on retroactive legislation, and no Cabinet or Parliament can bind its successors. The Cabinet can enter into war without Parliament’s permission or approval. It can expend money without Parliament’s approval or knowledge… It can authorize violations of the law, as was done in regard to payments of the Bank of England in 1847, in 1857, or in 1931. It can make treaties or other binding international agreements without the consent or knowledge of Parliament… The idea, widely held in the US, that the Commons is a legislative body and the Cabinet is an executive body is not true. Legislation originates in the meetings of the inner clique of the party, acting as a first chamber. If accepted by the Cabinet it passes the Commons almost automatically. The Commons, rather than a legislative body, is the public forum in which the party announces the decisions it has made in secret party and Cabinet meetings and allows the opposition to criticize in order to test public reactions. Thus all bills come from the Cabinet, and rejection in Commons is almost unthinkable…(469)”

• “It is not generally recognized that there have been many restrictions on democracy in Britain… effectively curtailing the exercises of democracy in the political sphere. (470)”

• “Since the two chief parties in England do not represent the ordinary Englishman, but instead represent the entrenched economic interests directly, there is relatively little ‘lobbying,’ or attempting to influence legislators by political or economic pressure. (477)” 

This is a small sampling of verifiable facts. However, these facts clash with long-entrenched beliefs which, over centuries, have become part of the culture in the society. Unfortunately, once beliefs are embraced, they are extremely difficult to dislodge from people's minds and a large proportion of them - probably a majority - react by simply rejecting the facts without verifying them.