CEP Press Release: CEP: MPs resorting to the Nuremberg war trials defence

‘If ever there was a moment when we really could do with England starting again just like Scotland with its own parliament, and shedding all the inanities, the vanities and the corrupt practices of both past and present in the way we are governed, it is now.’ That was the message put to all CEP blog readers by Gareth Young, Brighton member of the Campaign and co-editor of its website http://www.thecep.org.uk/wordpress/blog/

‘If a British politician has ever told you that the reason that they don’t want an English parliament is because it would mean ‘an extra layer of politicians’ and ‘extra cost’, then now you know the real reason why. They don’t want an English Parliament because it will drive their Westminster gravy train up against the buffers. We have seen how Scotland, the moment it got its own parliament, free from the tentacles of Westminster and its centuries of corrupt practice, established the clearest of guidelines and rules for their MSPs. The moment two of its members were found to have broken its rules, they were made to resign. Here, we have scores of Cabinet ministers, shadow cabinet ministers, junior cabinet ministers and backbenches milking the system which they and their colleagues past and present set up; and to date not one single resignation. They have preached ‘Britishness’ and British democracy but have undermined the concept through greed. They are money-grubbers feather-bedding their lifestyles. They have no claim to govern England. England needs a clean sheet to start again.’

‘Their argument ‘I complied with the rules’ is in essence the notorious Nuremberg Defence,’ Michael Knowles head of the CEP Media Unit has added to Gareth’s message. ‘Not of course in scale. Of course not’. Yet legalistically and morally in essence the same. The war criminals argued in Nuremberg that they obeyed the law; here MPs argue they have complied with the rules. There is no conceptual difference. In Nuremberg exposure of wrongdoing was followed by retribution. There is no retribution whatsoever in this case. And these MPspr expect to get away with it all just by ‘apologising’ and saying it will be enough to change the rules. Not at all. They so argue because they want to hang on to monies which in the ‘court of public opinion’ they unfairly obtained. There has to be retribution. Either MPs should pay back the monies they took from the public purse, or they should face prosecution for breaking the law if, for example, they have not paid capital gains tax where it was owed. Or both. There is no gainsaying it any longer. England needs its own parliament where it can start again, with a clean sheet, with new men and women, bound by new rules, this time in this modern age subject to the full force of freedom of information legislation, transparent and translucent.’