This week a rather extraordinary thing happened in the European Parliament, a body which gets far too little attention, given how much EU bodies are increasingly playing a part in running this country.
During one of the sessions of the European Parliament a UKIP MEP, Godfrey Bloom, managed to upset Martin Schulz, the German leader of the Party of European Socialists. Mr Bloom, annoyed by what he regarded as the dictatorial manner of the EU, shouted during a speech by Mr Schulz the old Nazi Slogan "ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer."
Mr Schulz, who was previously likened to a concentration camp guard by Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, was not amused and complained about Mr Bloom's behaviour. This despite Mr Schulz own impressive record of labelling non-Europhile's as fascists.
Mr Bloom was then asked to leave the chamber by Edward McMillan-Scott, the Liberal Democrat MEP who was standing in as chair of the Parliament.
When Mr Bloom refused to leave, saying that only his constituents had the right to remove him, Mr McMillan Scott extraordinarily called for a vote on the issue as to whether Mr Bloom be allowed to stay. The European Parliament voted for Mr Bloom to go, however the UKIP MEP, despite being accused of showing contempt for democracy, refused and had to be escorted out by security.
In this the European Parliament has brought shame on itself and has shown yet again that it does not understand genuine democracy.
Mr Bloom may have been acting in a way unbecoming of a gentleman, however as others have pointed out, why is he, as someone opposed to the EU, penalised for making Nazi themed attacks on his opponents, while EU-integrationists are free to slap the word fascist on anyone who is not keen on the Lisbon Treaty or the euro?
This abuse of democracy is increasingly becoming a hallmark of EU institutions, for example the ignoring of the "No" votes in the referendum on the European Constitution (later rebranded as the Lisbon Treaty) in Holland, France and Ireland. More seriously this abuse of democracy is increasingly reminiscent of some very dodgy happenings from history.
If, as was being claimed, voting to expel Mr Bloom was a legitimate and democratic way of getting rid of him, what is to prevent the majority pro-EU faction in the European Parliament voting to expel the minority anti-EU faction from the parliament. Under such logic this would be perfectly democratic.
Indeed under such logic the Enabling Law of 1933 which turned Germany from a democracy to a dictatorship, was an expression of democracy.
Such thinking would also support the English Bill of Attainder of 1641 as a perfectly democratic and legitimate act.
The Bill effectively declared that the Earl of Strafford, one of Charles I closest advisors, was guilty of high treason, despite the failure of an attempt to impeach him on such grounds. Unlike Mr Bloom, who only had to face the ignominy of being removed temporarily from the European Parliament, the Earl of Strafford had his head cut off thanks to this little bit of "democracy".
The Parliament which did this to him then rightly took a stand against Charles I, who was himself no fan of democracy. Having executed their King on similarly dodgy grounds Parliament and later Oliver Cromwell went on the rule the country in just a despotic manner as the King they had fought so hard to remove.
The European Parliament must learn that democracy does not just mean that the majority will is inflicted regardless of anything else. If that were so one might as well say that ten thieves deciding to mug one man were simply acting democratically to do so, as that is the majority will. As well as democracy there must be the rule of law and constitutional (whether written or unwritten) limits on what a majority can legitimately do, otherwise democracy becomes a mockery of itself.