All governments are only able to act because of the consent of those who are governed. This is true in Britain, America and even North Korea.
This is not to say that coercion does not lead to consent, but tyrannies fall when the population concludes that the enforced consent is no longer tolerable. Assad lost power in Syria because, even with all the tools of compulsion, his barbarism could not in the end continue to compel consent.
In a democracy, consent is given in another way. It is an acceptance that the majority, elected according to an established and time-honoured constitution, must be able to govern, and that this will sometimes have consequences for a minority. It has legitimacy from the ballot box, and is therefore entitled to override the rights of minorities because of the mandate it enjoys.
However, the mandate cannot be used arbitrarily and there are both legal and conventional constraints on power. One of the most important is that the minority must have the right to be heard and for its views to be considered.
It is in this context that what is happening in Piddington is so interesting because a community has, by a large majority, revoked its consent from the government of the nation at large. It feels that the importance of the imposition of illegal migrants, who will in total be about four times the number of inhabitants in the village, is disproportionate and unfair. Fundamentally, they think the Government is not behaving in a British way about its decision making and that they are not being heard.
