'Up' Or 'Down' - A musical interlude

One of the most beautiful of operatic arias must be "O Soave Fanciulla" at the end of Act 1 in La Boheme. Performances of this opera can vary in a number of ways, most noticeably in this aria where at the end the tenor either goes 'up or down'. A little background by way of explanation:

Luigi Ricci (1893-1981) was a vocal coach who over a period of years worked closely with Puccini (1858-1924) on the rehearsal and staging of his operas. Whilst Puccini never conducted one, he did carefully supervise several productions and was tireless in explaining the effects he wanted. Ricci made copious notes and in 1954 published a book "Puccini interpreti di se stesso" (Puccini interpreted by himself) which is a valuable, but little known source of information. Yet another opera star, Alfredo Mariotti, who has sung Benoit in La Boheme also studied under Ricci and is, in turn, another mine of information about performance practices. There are some traditional practices sanctioned by Ricci which some would say sound old-fashioned to modern ears and which are often accused as detracting from the originality of Puccini's writing. A famous example occurs at the end of O Soave Fanciulla where Rodolfo's final notes, sung offstage, are sung as an A rising to a high C - as demonstrated by Pavarotti:

Whereas what Puccini actually wrote was an F falling to an E, as demonstrated by Domingo:

'Up' or 'Down' - you choose.........

Cameron 'economic' with the facts?

"I feel I am free but I know I am not."
E.M. Corian - The Trouble with Being Born*

David Cameron, as would MilibandE or Clegg were they in his position, maintains that he heads the government of this country and by inference the government decides the country's future. In his attempt to solve perceived problems in the banking industry Cameron was waiting the findings of the Vickers Report (résumés of which can be found here and here), whose recommendations the government had pledged to adopt.

From City AM we now learn that a war of words has been taking place over implementation of the Vickers Report as the EU Commission now argues against giving Britain the flexibility it needs to put in place either the Vickers rules or the Bank of England’s new macro-prudential regime, insisting that the EU must have a “single rulebook” for capital.

Bearing in mind that any government must be able to plan its economic growth or regulate how it's economy is managed, how on earth can Cameron maintain that he heads the government of this nation, whilst at the same time keeping a straight face?

Just asking............

*Or in the case of the present Prime Minister: "The Trouble with Being Cameron."

Communitarianism

"Either you think – or else others have to think for you and take power from you, pervert and discipline your natural tastes, civilize and sterilize you."
F. Scott Fitzgerald

An excellent article by Whig, on the Adam Smith Institute website, highlights how the 'voluntary' sector is being subsumed into the state as a voice of the state, thus enabling the continuance of social engineering to be accomplished.

According to Wikipedia "Communitarianism" is an ideology that maintains the responsibility of the individual is to their community, emphasizing the family unit. The European Union and politicians have usurped this and applied it in order to further their own ends - in other words they intend us to believe we are all one community and of one family and that our responsibility is to them and the state. We can call this communism, authoritarianism, totalitarianism, or any other name you may wish to apply, but at the end of the day it boils to down to one word: 'control' - control of the people and their minds. Ian Parker-Joseph uses the term 'Marxism', a post in which he mentions Cameron's 'Big Society' idea, an idea that continues the subservience of volunteers in that each group of volunteers will have the 'assistance' of the government in the form of a minister or bureaucrat to 'guide' them.

The people of this country are in the process of being brainwashed to ask only those questions the political elite will allow and are, at the same time, being programmed to see every political decision as one that is unquestionably correct. This brainwashing, or social engineering, has now reached a stage where it appears that Britons are no longer able to see what is happening to them and their country.

As I have posted previously, the media are complicit in this process of brainwashing, or social engineering, because if the public does not receive all the information required for them to make an informed decision on any particular subject, it must follow that some form of news censorship is taking place. Whilst the media deliberately 'overlook' some news stories, or cover them superficially, others are covered to distraction - the latter which may be termed as 'junk news'.

That our governments both at home and abroad are making it a crime to have an opinion, limiting our freedom of action and choice, are themselves committing a crime- and it is about time that the people of this country exercised their right of making a citizen's arrest.

Just saying..................

Remember, Remember the 5th November.....

Old Holborn is holding a 'walk-about on that day - and I expect to see everyone attend! No excuses! Be there!

Double Dutch

David Cameron, according to a report on Politics Home (apologies, can't link directly to the FT as I have 'exhausted' my 'freebie access'), 'promises':

"Our ambition is to build a new and better economy – where opportunity, wealth and work are spread more widely; where those who work hard and play by the rules get a good deal. There will be no short-cuts to success. But this coalition has the determination to do the right thing for our country, so that we don’t just weather the international storm – but come out stronger on the other side."

That he cannot built a new and better economy as he will not have 100% control of that economy in view of the forthcoming EU plans for economic governance and that due to our EU membership and accompanying 'constraints' those who play be the rules do not get a better deal shows that this is more 'Cameron hogwash'. That if the Conservative Party did have the determination to do the right thing for our country we would not still be encumbered with EU membership illustrates yet again that Cameron is a fraud.

If further proof of the accusation of fraud were needed, one just has to look at the phrase "where opportunity, wealth and work are spread more widely", a phrase that is pure socialism in content. Now we finally have confirmation why the sobriquet "Red Con" was orginally applied to his brand of 'Conservatism'!

Just saying..................

Truth is the new 'Hate Speech'

The title of this post is taken from a video over at Klein Verzet's place. Whilst this speaker is talking about the islamization of the United States, a great deal of what she say is true in this country. For example, if you dare to speak out against membership of the EU you're promptly accused of xenophobia, or, speak out against immigration and you are accused of being a racist. She also makes the point that politicians control the media and thus control what information is available. As an aside to that last point, Off with your head confirms that view.

Autonomous Mind posts on "The next European War" and The Boiling Frog on "Another Warning" and both posts are well worth the trip over to read them. Coupled with these two post and likewise worthy of reading is that from Janet Daley on the Telegraph website. I particularly liked this section:

"Indeed, it is often quite eerie how the statements and mannerisms of EU officials, seemingly so dedicated to being the precise opposite of earlier, infamous generations, end up echoing (or parodying) the more memorable moments of the war-torn 20th century. When the president of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, proclaimed, “I am pleased to stand before you this morning and confirm that Europe is closer to resolving its financial and economic crisis… We are showing that we can unite in the most difficult of times”, I half expected him to wave a piece of paper in the air and proclaim economic stability in our time."

That the public is becoming more and more aware that our politicians lie to us; treat us as 'cash cows'; believe they are a race apart; have no real understanding of democracy; through a compliant media, control the information provided to us; and consequently treat us as slaves, brings forward the secenario of a 'peoples revolution'. That because the political system is rigged against the electorate means that Janet Daley's end of her article is even more relevant:

"It relies on unswerving belief and enforced conformity, just like all the “year zero” political movements that ended in totalitarianism and terror in the past. The one hope is that the great mass of the people, unlike most of their political leaders, seem to understand all this quite clearly. It remains to be seen whether they will have to go out on the streets to make their case."

 As a nation our first characteristic may not be immediate retaliation against those that offend us however, as history shows, when 'push comes to shove' we are as good as - if not better - than any other nation in showing our displeasure when it becomes necessary. When 'shove' is the only alternative left I am sure the British people will do so to such an extent that they will be able to face any other nation and, quoting the words of Mr. Punch, say to them: "That's the way to do it".

The dearth of a blitz and the lack of 'ack-ack'

'Dearth' - a lack, scarcity : 'Blitz' - from the German 'Lightning'. That Darlington was originally known as 'Dearthington' and Daniel Defoe thought the place was remarkable in that it had nothing but dirt could probably be applied to this article in that there is a dearth of logic contained therein and it does nothing but attempt to dirty the waters. Likewise the writer of this article needs a bolt of lightning to bring forth any element of knowledge to his mind.

Darlington writes:

"An October poll by IPSOS/Mori told us that only 1 per cent of voters put Europe as their highest concern. Only 4 per cent put it as among the highest concerns. By contrast, 68 per cent say that the economy is among the most pressing issues facing Britain. MPs and the Government have to strike a balance between the vehemently pronounced concerns of a minority and the quieter, more visceral concerns of a majority."

For heavens sake, just how many times does the point have to be made that if politicians won't discuss or mention the subject - unless forced to - and the media will not write about it, again unless forced to, the public will not be aware or be able to form an opinion about 'Europe'. Darlington continues:

"To quote Edmund Burke one more time: “patience will achieve more than force”. This notion of timing it right, along with a divergence with tactics, wording and content, is what MPs, in their judgement, voted for on Monday."

First, where he alive today, Edmund Burke may well be about to find that force will achieve more than patience in that I believe the public's patience with the political elite is fast running out. Second, Darlington is wrong in that MPs did not vote in their judgement - that 'judgement' had already been made for them by the Whips; and for some by the desire to retain their ministerial positions.

All one can say about the second article is that had the MSM bothered to read the blogs (EU Referendum, Autonomous Mind, The Boiling Frog, UKK41, Calling England, Ironies Too, Ian PJ on Politics, Muffled Vociferation, to name but a few*) they would have known that the subject of 'Europe' never went away - in fact, as a subject, it became even more discussed. That the idiot - because that is exactly what this 'journalist' is - who penned the FT article continues to discuss a course of political action that cannot happen just shows he has carried out no research and thus knows not about that which he writes.

There is of course yet another reason, besides the one outlined in my previous post, that repatriation of powers will not happen and that comes from this article in the Guardian, one in which Nick Clegg has directly contradicted Cameron. David Cameron, on the subject of 'Europe' is fighting on a number of fronts; namely public opinion, Labour and Nick Clegg. Were his Deputy Prime Minister a member of his own party Cameron would no doubt have sacked him some time ago. Rather unfortunately for Cameron, who is intent on remaining at Number 10, he needs to keep Clegg on 'board' in order to accomplish that intention. In any event, knowing that all three party leaders are intent on keeping the UK in the European Union it is obvious that our political scene today is but a sham, one in which Cameron talks about repatriation of powers with the complicit agreement of Clegg, who in turn states that repatriation will not be condoned, a statement made with the complicit agreement of Cameron. It is all for public consumption dear reader and should be accepted as such. Whilst there may be a few MPs, such as Philip Davies and Philip Hollobone who understand why and for what they have been elected, there are others such as Nick, Enfield North, who exhibit a level of intelligence akin the proverbial plank 'de Bois'.

We all know that Matthew d'Ancona is a mouthpiece for Cameron (and his latest article in the Sunday Telegraph once again illustrates that) but when an avowed 'eurosceptic' MP - and a member of Better Off Out - pens an article for the Sunday Telegraph, one in which he too writes about how best repatriation of powers can be accomplished and in the process does not even mention that said repatriation is a 'no-no', then it becomes obvious the rot in our political system is firmly embedded. Anyone still believe Douglas Carswell is a 'eurosceptic'?

It must be as plain as can be that to remove the rotten, debased and disliked Quislings that inhabit our political system we must, to paraphrase Leonard Cohen, first take Westminster and then present the civil servants inhabiting Whitehall with an ultimatum, namely that they do as instructed or they too face a lamppost - their choice. After that, we bring in a participatory form of democracy, thus ensuring that the people of this land never ever again have to endure the purgatory that has gone before.


* With apologies to any omitted........

Cameron: Crime shouldn't pay.

According to Politics Home, David Cameron believes that benefit claimants who commit crimes should lose part of their state income as 'crime shouldn't pay'. 

One form of state income is that paid to those without a job and who are unable to find one - conversely, in the case of politicians it is state income paid to those who have a job but are unable to satisfactorily perform the tasks allotted to them. In those two examples both are 'benefit claimants' - and if benefit claimants who commit crimes should lose part of their state income then in the case of payments made to politicians, the British taxpayer is due one hell of a refund.

On a similar theme, Daniel Hannan posts, asking the question; Who is the Parliamentarian of 2011? We have 'Parliamentarians'? Where, who are they and why have we therefore been taxed untold millions per annum to fund what appears to be the biggest ponzi scheme known to man?

Just saying..............

Repatriation of powers: really?

The Daily Telegraph carries a report that David Cameron has ordered a review, involving every government department, of every aspect of the UK's membership of the European Union, with a view to creating a 'menu of demands' where repatriation of powers are concerned. Coupled with the Daily Telegraph article, the Mail (bless it's socks) carries a report that more than two-thirds of people believe the European Union is 'over-mighty.

At the risk of being accused of needless repetition - it ain't going to happen for one reason and one reason only: 'Acquis Communautire', a term which means that competences (or powers), once ceded to the EU, can never be returned. That Cameron can propose and allow to continue this fallacy is but disingeniousness on his part - a characteristic of which he has prior form. That the media can also propagate this idea, with no attempt that I have seen to question the possibility that this can be achieved, is an act of negligence on their part.

Let us digress for a moment and consider 'sovereignty', 'self-governance' and 'political power'. 'Sovereignty' is generally held to be the ability of having supreme, independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory, ie a nation. It can also be said that 'sovereignty' has always been defined as the ability to guarantee the best interests of its own citizens, thus, if a state could not act in the best interests of its own citizens, it could not be thought of as a “sovereign” state. 'Self-governance' is generally held to be the ability to exercise all of the necessary functions of power without intervention from any authority which they cannot themselves alter. 'Power', in the political sense, is held to be the ability of a section of society which is elected to administer some, or all, public resources including defense of the realm. (Let us not, at this moment, enter into a discussion about 'administer' and 'dictate'). That the UK's membership of the European Union means that it is unable to qualify for just one of those terms means that Cameron and the rest of the political class, who maintain we 'must' remain a member of the EU, are in effect guilty of treasonous behaviour in that, without the people's consent, they have ceded, elsewhere, the ability of the UK to decide its own future.

And that, dear reader, is why first we need to slaughter our political elite and then tell the European Union that they need to indulge in the dance known as a 'Foxtrot', adding the word 'Oscar'!

Update: As has been pointed out to me the second paragraph has been badly worded - the "acquis communautaire" is just the body of law. It, itself does not prevent the repatriation of powers.  What does that is the Commission's monopoly of the power of initiation, combined with its role as guardian of the treaty.  Since it requires a law to repeal a law, and the Commission will never repeal a law unless it is replaced with another one, this ensures that the acquis continues to grow. However, this only applies to competences already defined in the treaties. There is nothing, in theory, to stop the member states reducing the Commission's powers (and thereby the acquis) with an amending treaty. In practice, though, that isn't going to happen.

How much? You cannot be serious!

Two articles, one in the Guardian and the other in the Daily Telegraph, report that our elected dictators are floating the idea, once again, that their parties should be financed by the public, this time to the tune of £3 per vote. It would appear from Lord Feldman's quoted remarks in the Guardian that this money is required to allow political parties to engage with the electorate. The only problem with that idea is the public obviously don't wish to engage with those that Feldman represents - so why the hell should the public pay? From the House of Commons Communications Allowance Booklet it can be seen that they already receive an allowance, upto a maximum of £10,000, to cover costs incurred engaging with the public.

I think the phrase 'Foxtrot Oscar' is more than appropriate in response to this latest proposal!

Afterthought: And there are those amongst us who believe we should not rise up and slaughter these bastards?

Time to ACTA on all this secrecy?

Courtesy of Calling England comes notice that the European Commission proposes that ACTA be signed and concluded both by the EU and by all the Member States. From Wikipedia we learn the background to ACTA (the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) and whilst admittedly I have not followed this piece of intended legislation in any detail, what I have read tends to raise questions for me in respect of invasion of privacy. There would appear, unfortunately, to be other, possibly more important, matters that have come to light.

The EU's 'presentation' of the need for ACTA can be read here and it is somewhat amusing that the EU manages to link the words 'cooperation' and 'enforcement practises' - but I digress. What is most noticeable is that details of the negotiations involving the countries initially signed up were considered to be 'confidential' and no details were released, to the extent that details of an impending agreement were not even placed in the House of Commons library - even as late as September last year details were still unknown to the HoC, or even the British people. Finally, at the beginning of October last year, the final draft was released to the public (unlike previous drafts, which were leaked) but I am unable to recall much of this draft appearing in our media.

The article from tech dirt, to which Calling England links, makes a very important point at the end when it states that the EU believes ACTA should be signed as it does not make any changes to existing laws - when it so patently does - is another moment of 'beggar belief'.

What we see here in respect of the secrecy - the withholding of information from the public sphere - does not bode well for the future of our freedom of information whilst we remain a member of the European Union and is but another step along the road to our enforced servitude.

Comparing like with like?

David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg have passed various, one might say disparaging, comments about the remuneration of top executives, with Cameron on record as saying:

"I think everyone, whether they’re in public life, whether they’re in private enterprise, they’ve got to be able to justify the decisions they make about pay."

Needless to say Will Straw is to the fore, bleating that as top pay soars the 99% are left behind.  Just what Cameron wants, calling for transparency, accountability and responsbility in respect of boardroom pay is anyone's guess.

What the executives of the FTSE 100 companies earn is a matter for their shareholders and not politicians. It would be an interesting exercise to compare those executive's pay with that of senior politicians who receive free (or subsidised second) homes, subsidised meals and alcohol, free travel to and from Westminster, free trips abroad, free staff, free office equipment - and until recently, free tvs, free furniture, in fact free everything.

As far as Cameron, Miliband and the Little Boy are concerned, in my view their pronouncements sound very much like 'sour grapes' and, in keeping with political principles, assertions made on incomplete evidence. Of course, David Cameron may well have been basing his comment on that of principle, however on that point it is worth recalling a quote by Fraser Nelson:

"David (& George) can't see why MPs would sacrifice career for principle - for them, career has been their principle."

Just saying..........

The penny appears to have dropped with Cameron

if this report is to be believed as from the tone it appears David Cameron has ceased 'demanding' and now appears to be 'pleading' to be heard. The irony of Cameron now pleading with the 17 eurozone countries is delicious when one realises that this entire problem is one he and Osborne helped create with his insistence that the eurozone countries sort themselves out. How he intends fighting to prevent closer integration of the Eurozone countries leading to anti-competitive regulations when he is now one of the minority countries remains to be seen. If he believes he can pull that off, then I would like to see him walk on water first.

"Stormin' Norman" posts a question I have previously raised:

"Last Monday, I asked in the House of Lords whether an agreement by the seventeen eurozone member states to make agreements outside the Council of Ministers and then to vote in the Council as a bloc for such agreements would constitute a transfer of powers sufficient to trigger a referendum here. Lord Strathclyde, the Government Leader in the Lords, understood my point clearly enough. That was that the eurozone group can always outvote the remaining member states. What we said or how we voted would have no effect on the decisions which they reached.
Tom Strathclyde confirmed that as no treaty amendment was involved, no referendum would be triggered. Now it seems that the Prime Minister has understood the problem. We and the other nine states outside the eurozone have been disfranchised on many of the key questions of taxation and commercial regulation."

Any loss of ability by a country to set it's own taxation and economic policies constitutes a loss of power, treaty change or no treaty change.

One point that I fail to understand in Norman Tebbit's post is his referral to a possible 'third way'. If we are one of the countries forming a minority group within the 27, just how do we try to develop an alternative European architecture to preserve open and free markets in our mutual interest? Off with your head is correct when she writes that the European Union has consistently tried to solve the eurozone crisis by making small and insignificant gestures, which quickly crumble under scrutiny.

Interestingly one of the aims of the European Union, in their wish to create a United States of Europe, has been their attempts to 'kill' any sense of nationalism, yet is that not the card Merkel and Sarkozy are playing in their desire to be 'top dog'? It is, in my view, nationalism that will contribute to the downfall of the EU and I can but echo Fausty:

"There's nothing inherently wrong with nationalism. Countries are nations. Countries' leaders used to act in the national interest, but now work for globalism, even if that works against the national interest.
Corporations write our laws - be they from the EU or from our own government. They write them to reduce competition from the little guy and to garner tax favours or waivers for immigration/settlement laws. These global entities have become too big to fail, and yet they themselves represent the very antithesis of the free market economy.
Your homework for tonight: Explore the true meaning of nationalism and discuss its use as a firewall in a global system. "

Norman Tebbit is correct when he reminds us that the history of this kingdom has been one of having to intervene in our own interest to save the masters of Europe from their follies. First though we leave and when Europe has 'gone up in flames' (be that literal or metaphorical matters not) then once again we can indeed go in and try and set them on the path of recovery (again!). 

If they only asked the people first........

"Have you ever noticed how statists are constantly "reforming" their own handiwork? Education reform. Health-care reform. Welfare reform. Tax reform. The very fact that they're always busy "reforming" is an implicit admission that they didn't get it right the first 50 times."
Lawrence W. Reed, economist, in The Freeman

Readers of this blog will be aware that I am a firm believer in a participatory form of democracy and would favour a move to a system similar to that practised in Switzerland. For too long governments have continually ignored matters that are of interest to the public whilst interfering and subsequently legislating in matters that should ultimately be decided by the public. Just today we hear that the rules on primogeniture are to be changed; that a permanent move to British Summer Time is being suggested; that Thorbjørn Jagland, secretary general of the Council of Europe, said he would accept the Tories’ plan to scrap the Human Rights Act – if the idea was to enshrine the convention in UK law.

Under our present system of representative democracy we are subject to our elected representatives deciding matters that affect us, even though they had no mandate so to do at the time of their election - and when they do, they move the goalposts whereby we end up with an even more draconian law that was first envisaged. On the subjects of primogeniture and an advance to British Summer Time, I do not recall these two matters being part of any party's manifesto and, in any event, if changes are to be made, surely it is the public that should so decide? Just who the hell is Thorbjørn Jagland to decide what changes to the Human Rights Act can be made and lay down conditions on acceptability? Who the hell elected him - and more to the point, who needs him when we have our own representatives, who are all 'statists' regardless of party, already meddling with our existing Bill of Rights and Common Law? Returning to the question of primogeniture, the No10 website has just issued this statement from David Cameron, one that states the current rule which says that anyone who marries a Roman Catholic can’t become monarch will also be abolished. This immediately presents the situation whereby, as any child of a Catholic has to be reared in that faith, it would be possible to have a Catholic monarch resulting in all the ramifications of that situation.

The root problem in the present system of electing our representatives lies in the manifesto system, one whereby a 'basket' of proposals is offered to the electorate who - if we set aside tribal loyalists - then has to make a decision on which 'basket' best serves them better. The decision making process then becomes harder still when all parties basically offer the same proposals, or omit proposals that the electorate would like to see. That this leads to a 'democratised dictatorship' must be plain for all to see and the sooner the system is changed so that the public can, by means of a referendum, halt any policy proposed by their politicians with which they do not agree or propose a law of their choosing, the better.

David Cameron may well believe that the great strength of our constitutional approach is its ability to evolve, however I would suggest it is the people who should decide when and how any evolving takes place and not some democratised self-anointed dictator.

So we are going to have a 'British' Bill of Rights?

"It might be more worthwhile if we stopped wringing our hands and started ringing the necks of our politicians."

From the Coalition's 'programme for government' (page 11):

"We will establish a Commission to investigate the creation of a British Bill of Rights that incorporates and builds on all our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, ensures that these rights continue to be enshrined in British law, and protects and extends British liberties. We will seek to promote a better understanding of  the true scope of these obligations and liberties."

On 8th February 2010 the European Union produced document 6180/10: which, from the introduction, stated "the question of the accession of the EU to the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights, hereinafter referred to as "ECHR", ranks among the highest priorities". 

The House of Commons Library produced on 22nd March 2011 Standard Note SN/IS/5914, which stated:

"3 The draft Council Decision
The negotiating mandate, the Draft Council Decision authorising the Commission to negotiate the Accession Agreement of the European Union to the European Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), has been confidential and therefore was not made available for parliamentary scrutiny. However, the Government deposited a partially declassified version of the Council Decision authorising the negotiation of the accession agreement. On 8 February 2010 the Commission published document 6180/10 on EU accession which outlined the informal discussions and issues being addressed at meetings of Justice and Home Affairs Counsellors, national experts, the Commission and a representative of the Court of Justice."

One does wonder why the negiotiating mandate has been classified 'confidential' and was not available for parliamentary scrutiny, but I digress........

It is now discovered that, in the meantime, the Coalition Government has been working behind the scenes, so to speak, proposing text amendments to the "Draft Agreement on the Accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights" - those amendments can be read here.

We, in the United Kingdom, already have a Bill of Rights, one that is steadily being eroded by directives and regulations from the European Union; by adherence to the European Court of Human Rights; and by the nudges from unelected 'politically correct' fake charities.

It is becoming obvious that the Coalition's proposed British Bill of Rights has already been written!

A translation of

"Being in Europe but not run by Europe" and "the necessity of being in Europe in order to influence events":

*With acks to Max Farquar from whom I 'borrowed' the above, his title being Ventriloquist and his dummy

Mixed message?

Osborne was very specific in his Commons statement that British taxpayers' money would not be used for the new Greek bailout, neither would it be put towards any special IMF package for the eurozone. Unfortunately that doesn't mean we can avoid further costs arising from our obligations to the IMF. He repeated his promise of two weeks ago, that "Britain stands ready to consider the case for further resources and contribute with other countries if necessary". (Now that is an offer that Christine Lagarde will probably grab with both hands). Yet just hours later Guido Fawkes tweets that the "first CCHQ press release from new Econ Sec Chloe Smith attacks Ed Balls for not wanting to send more money to the IMF to bail out €urozone."

The phrase: "Get your acts together, boys and girls" springs to mind.

Just saying.................

When you're a small fish among big fish........

Presumably Cameron will be required to 'report to Parliament' on his 'euro meeting' which took place yesterday - a report which should be most interesting.

From the Mail it would appear that Cameron received the proverbial 'cold shoulder' from Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy and we learn from Bruno Waterfield, in the print edition of the Daily Telegraph (sorry, no link) that Cameron has failed to win reassurances from European leaders that Britain's economic interests will be protected if single-currency countries form a 'eurobloc' to deal with the financial crisis. Quoting a source from amongst European diplomats, apparently Cameron is getting nowhere and the tide is against him - in other words, he has been rebuffed by both France and Germany. That Cameron was most definitely on the sidelines can be illlustrated by the paucity of the content in statements being put out by the No10 website, the latest being this. 

One can only wonder at the short-sightedness of Cameron and Osborne who have been pressing that the 17 eurozone countries should sort out their own mess, but not then realizing that those 17 member states would form a bloc, one which would be taking decisions that will affect the remaining member states outside the euro. Now we have Osborne complaining about a 'two-tier Europe' and that Britain must be alert to the danger of 'caucusing' in areas that should legitimately be the preserve of the 27.

Nothing like being in the European Union and thus able to influence events, or as 'Wee Willie' likes to say: 'In Europe, but not run by Europe', is there Mr. Cameron?

See, I'm not the only one saying it

From the letters section of today's Daily Telegraph:

"SIR – Your letters on the EU are really arguing for a revolution right now: dumping the Coalition Government, parking David Cameron in the Tower, and taking back power by the people.
I would be pleased to lead this movement if nobody else better qualified can be found – which should not be hard, since I am on the cusp of my 88th year and spend most of my time in my garden.
Lord Walsingham
Merton, Norfolk"

A worthy point not made in 'the' debate

Parliamentary debate, Hansard 24th October 2011:

David Cameron:

"......When your neighbour’s house is on fire, your first impulse should be to help put out the flames...."

From the letters section of the Daily Telegraph today:

"SIR – My understanding is that, when a place is burning down, the correct action is to evacuate the building.
John Kelsey
Ludham, Norfolk"

In other words Mr. Cameron; we are Better Off Out!

So all those Tory rebels were 'eurosceptics' were they?

"I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you."
Friedrich Nietzsche

With all the political commentators, Conservative Home and Jacob Reese Mogg maintaining that the Conservative Party are by nature eurosceptics and that 81 of their number voted accordingly, a small paragraph at the end of an article by James Kirkup in today's Daily Telegraph caught my eye (unfortunately it does not appear to be on line). In this article he quotes Conservative MPs who say they are worried about reselection come the new boundary changes and at the end of the article comes this:

"One rebel confessed: "I'm actually not particularly anti-European. If there was a referendum tomorrow, I'd vote to stay in. Supporting the motion was partly about keeping faith with the people who sent me here and partly about taking a swing at No10."

This unnamed rebel will not be the only one from the 81 holding similar beliefs and reasons for rebelling, hence the electorate has every reason to be doubtful when a Conservative MP declares himself a eurosceptic. The fact that this rebel is prepared to disregard his/her constituent's faith speaks volumes about polititians principle's and their sense of honour.

And people are petitioning for a second debate on the referendum question? Bearing in mind the above - for what and why, exactly?

A new Conservative Party?

Helen, Your Freedom and Ours, posted on the Bruges Group meeting, as did I, although she chose to highlight Peter Hitchen's call for a new Conservative Party to be formed. That this becomes self evident is a view that grows by the day as the 'message' being put out by the that party becomes more and more confusing. Let us leave to one side, for a moment, Cameron's 'repatriating powers' and 'renegotiating our terms of membership' policies, ones that we all know are not 'on the table' - and concentrate on statements/articles being placed in the media.

On Monday Lord Ashcroft had a piece in the Daily Telegraph in which he lamented the failure of his party  to increase their standing in the opinion polls, in which he asks who the voters are blaming for their pain. Stating that part of their support is that voters do not believe Labour has a credable alternative, he omits the fact that, at present, neither do the electorate believe the Conservatives have either.

Just two days after a debate on whether a referendum should be granted, we have what may be termed a damage limitation exercise on Conservative Home, lo and behold, by the same author, in which he tackles the same subject although from a different angle by adding a different reason. Listing all the same reasons and citing that the question of our EU membership is a 'distraction', he completely ignores the fact that our membership of the EU and the constraints imposed by that membership are, in general, the reason for our difficulties in encouraging growth in the economy and in the creating of jobs. Arguing that immigration is not the big issue, but that what the public care about is the impact on jobs, housing, social services beggars belief when it is obvious that immigration is the cause of all those public worries.

It would appear that the Conservative Party under the leadership control of Cameron is about to commit self-burial, so big is the hole into which they are obviously digging themselves. On the Coffee House Spectator blog, Sam Gyimah, Conservative MP for East Surrey, posts an article repeating the Cameron line about the need for repatriation of powers and the need to renegotiate our membership. Accepting that this will never happen for reasons of 'acqui communitaire' anyway, it will never happen during the lifetime of this Parliament due to the publicly stated position of Nick Clegg, one which is covered in this report from the Daily Telegraph. In contrast, yesterday Politics Home (£) quotes David Lidington stating that work on the repatriation of powers has 'already started', which makes one wonder just what the hell is going on.

Actually we all do know what the hell is going on - the public is being 'softened up' through the process of mind control to accept the situation that the Conservatives have tried, but........... - and thereby will we be consigned to what the European Union has always stated is its aim, namely ever closer union. That the Conservative Party needs to change tack is illustrated by this article by Jeremy Warner in today's Daily Telegraph. If Cameron is intent on this 'renegotiation thingy' of his, if he is intent on safeguarding London's financial sector, if he is intent ensuring that Britain is not swamped by eurozone control, then he has only one course of action and that is to politely inform Brussels that we are off - byeee. Personally I am totally fed up with all this prevarication about the millions of jobs which are dependent on our membership of the EU, the false assertion that 50% of our trade is with the EU (especially when the reply to Lord Stoddart's question in the HoL showed that our export figures are flawed) - if those reasons are true then show us, give us the cost/benefit analysis for which I have been pleading. On that point, I have yet to see Gerard Batten's assertions, contained in his analysis, refuted by Cameron et all.

Peter Hitchen's call for a 'new' Conservative Party, whilst welcome, won't happen as there are too many career politicians present in the existing one. Some may say that the nearest thing we have to a Conservative Party is Ukip and, although a member of that party, I have to agree with Hitchen's opinion of them. How to break the dictatorial stranglehold that our politicians have on this country? The sooner the public can somehow be educated to a more participatory form of a political system, along the lines of that enjoyed by the Swiss, the better for this country and it's people.

This renegotiation 'thingy'

During the debate yesterday - and previously - Cameron, Hague and their acolytes - were all proposing that renegotiation to enable the clawing back of powers was the course of action to take in order to resolve the admitted difficulties created by our membership of the EU. Likewise there was mention during the debate - and in other debates - of the fact that Parliament was the sole arbiter in matters of sovereignty.

The questions I would wish to pose to those believers of an unattainable dream is just how they propose clawing back powers without renegotiation; what procedures exist to do just that; just what would be offered, during the necessary renegotiation process, in return for those powers; which powers, specifically, should be returned and what would be conceded, coupled with just who would make those decisions?

How can those who believe in continued membership of the EU on their terms, ones that would result in only partial self-governance, maintain that Parliament can still be the sole arbiter in matters of sovereignty? That position is completely indefensible and illogical - therefore those that propose that should have no place in the House of Commons. The illogicality of allowing those who created a Gordian Knot being entrusted with untangling it cannot be allowed.

That those 'renegiotiators' and 'claw-backers' have another 3½ years in which to create yet more havoc, to enmesh this country even deeper in a federalist state, means that the people of this country, if they are to preserve their country and it's independence, have only one option - and that is to copy the Libyan method of regime change. If that means we too have a few secret and therefore unmarked graves, so be it.*

Just saying.....................

* Afterthought: It would also relieve us of the necessity to read such journalist outpourings of crap such as this, this and this.

Oops, Sorry James!

about this (starts 2:44 in)..............

Update: Oh dear, did it earlier too - sorry Nigel!

Democracy: 'UK Style' vs 'Libya Style'

Yesterday in Parliament we saw a statement made on the recent EU Heads of State meeting and a vote on whether there should be a referendum on our country's membership of the EU. Before proceeding further please note that Cameron's statement on the former, followed by the debate can be viewed here (start at 15:30:48) and read here (begins page 25) and which includes the voting record. I have no wish to highlight entire speeches, readers may form their own opinions on those which were good and those which were poor, suffice it to say that as someone has just mentioned on twitter there is no 'I' in the word democracy, something which MPs do not appear to have realized. To take two examples:

Cameron, in his statement, continues to espouse the line: "I believe in EU membership....." - one continuing in his responses to questions from MPs, MilibandE likewise follows this line in his response to Cameron. Cameron was of course, as is normal, helped with some 'patsy' questions to his statement, from amongst others, Charlie Elphicke, Andrea Leadsom and Tony Baldry. The latter was being somewhat devious with the facts by way of his question wherein he stated: "Will the Prime Minister confirm that, at the last general election, the Conservative manifesto committed us to seeking to return powers from Europe on economic and social policy, but that nowhere did it contain a commitment to seek an in/out referendum or to seek to renegotiate our terms of membership of the European Union?" and Cameron was likewise devious with his reply. Both Baldry and Cameron do not seem aware that one cannot just take back powers from the EU without a renegotiation of this country's membership.

In the debate on the motion there were several points worthy of note. Hague (page 59) is still having trouble with basic arithmetic in that, in answer to a question from Bernard Jenkin, he is still unable to grasp the fact that 17 is a majority out of a total of 27. Douglas Alexander has a similar problem to Hague, in that Alexanders problem is with facts. In response to a question from Graham Stuart, Alexander stated that the EU Constitution is no more, having been rejected by the Dutch and the French, whilst failing to acknowledge the similarities twixt the Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty.

(As an aside, Douglas Alexander was correct to counter early accusations of the previous Labour government being solely responsible for the bail-out responsibilities in which we presently find ourselves by reminding MPs that it was indeed Justine Greening being on record as having written a letter  confirming the cross-party nature of support for the steps that were taken. Douglas Carswell has been pressing for the release of all correspondence on this matter including discussions between Darling and Osborne. To date I believe that it is correct to say Carswell is still without a reply)

Anyway, to return to the debate. Much as I have time for Kate Hoey, even she appears to be a believer in this charade of repatriation and renegotiation of powers. (page 89) Philip Hollobone is right (page 96) to make the point that the problem with the European issue at general elections is that there are a lot of other issues to discuss and it gets lost in the noise, in part because of the establishment view on the European Union, which often suppresses public opinion on this issue - something the leaders of the Lib/Lab/Con make damn sure happens. Gisela Stuart made a most telling contribution when she stated (page103):

"...... and talk about the nature of democracy and the nature of democracy in the House. For better or worse, the House has decided that it should become a far more participatory democracy. We have said that we will ask the people much more and have such things as e-petitions. If we are to have e-petitions, we had better start taking them seriously. We cannot say, “Some are more frivolous than others. If they suit us, we’ll take them on board; and if they don’t, we’ll knock them on the head,” because they are all serious."

To her credit Gisela Stuart continued:

"It is presumptuous of the House to think that it knows what the people would say. We should not take for granted what the people would say. Even if I were to accept the Government’s argument that now is not the time, what is the case against having a referendum at the same time as the EU elections in 2014? I assume that for once—it has not happened since I have been around—we would have a European election during which we actually talked about Europe. We could have a referendum on such an occasion. In the name of democracy and having trust in the people, which we all say that we do, we should vote for the motion tonight, because if politicians do not trust the people, why on earth should the people trust the politicians?"

That hardly any MP believes in a participatory type of democracy is not surprising for obvious reasons, namely it would result in the loss of their power, privileges and perks. This is best illustrated by reference to my previous post in which I discussed my first impressions of Parliament. When viewed on television they appear 'giants' of our society yet 'in the flesh' they are such little people, but in common with little people they have an inherent disregard for others, as witnessed by the likes of Nadhim Zahawi who wandered through the lobby. The attitude seen from those MPs observed in the lobby seemed to be one questioning just what the hell their paymasters were actually doing in Parliament in the first place. Yet another example of this misplaced attitude by politicians is one illustrated by this post from Richard North, EU Referendum, showing the response by Graham Stuart (Conservative) when asked to vote for the motion. 

As Autonomous Mind posts, the size of the Conservative 'rebellion' should not be taken at face value and that had the motion under debate been purely an in/out question, the actual number of rebels would probably only have amounted to those who have signed the Better Off Out pledge, regardless of what John Redwood believes. Reverting to the title of this post, again linking to Richard North, I can but echo his view that whilst Libyans can now chose their own rulers – we can't, that in order to reach their happy state, the Libyans had to resort to murder and that our political brethren would do well to meditate on that fact.

Lobbying one's MP - or as I wished, just lob!

I spent a delightful day yesterday in London, sharing the company of Mark Wadsworth, The Boiling Frog, The Talking Clock, Katabasis and Harry Aldridge amongst others. Having previously assembled on College Green where a demonstration of defiance was staged by Ukip against the impending debate and vote in the House of Commons, processed around Parliament Square, it was time for a drink or two prior to queuing to lobby our individual MPs. Having waited for two hours, the queue being allowed entry in groups of 30, it was our turn, where security is akin to that at airports. Never having visited Parliament previously it was an intriguing experience - on entering one has to obtain a green card on which it has to be stated the MP you wish to see, your name and address and the subject matter to be discussed. From 'the lobby area' a short corridor leads to another vestibule area beyond which are the doors, opposite the Speaker, into the chamber. The short corridor is guarded by two members of Plod to ensure that those members of the public who do not have the requisite piece of paper cannot proceed further. After two hours, during which my MP appeared not, I approached one Plod and requested whether it would be possible for him to go and finger the collar of my MP and inform him he was wanted for questioning. This met with a wry laugh from Plod and, needless to say, a refusal. 

At 6:15pm it was necessary to leave as The Boiling Frog and I wished to attend a debate held by the Bruges Group, the debate being entitled "Euroscepticism or Secession". The speakers were supposed to be Peter Hitchens and Mark Pritchard MP, however with the parliamentary debate having been brought forward obviously Mark Pritchard was unable to attend and his place was taken by David Campbell-Bannerman MEP who had, a few months ago, defected from Ukip and joined the Conservative Party. Peter Hitchens was on good form and tore into the Conservative Party and Cameron to the extent that both were left in tatters. At one point Campbell-Bannerman made the statement, in answer to a question, that he did not believe in 'renegotiation' and preferred a 'free trade' type of association with the EU. This prompted me to ask him the following question (verbatim):

"It would be agreed by most people gathered here that a most important deficit in our democracy is the lack of principle and honour of politicians. Bearing this in mind I would like to ask Mr. Bannerman whether it was political principle that made him join a party with whose views he was at such variance"

Needless to say the question was not answered. There will no doubt be a video of the proceedings produced by the Bruges Group and when available I will post a link to this. It was also a delight to make the acquaintance of Helen, Your Freedom and Ours, a most delightful lady and one whose views I hold in high regard.

I am now going to listen to the debate in the HoC and will be posting on that later today. 


Update: The Bruges Group have made available videos of the speeches by Campbell-Bannerman and Hitchens:

Monday 24th October 2011

Posting will be virtually non-existent today and tomorrow evening, although I will be posting during the day tomorrow.

More on that 'democratised dictatorship' thingy (3)

"Let us never forget that government is ourselves and not an elected power over us. The ultimate rulers of our democracy are ourselves and not a Prime Minister, MPs, Peers and government officials, but the voters of this country."
(Paraphrasing Franklin D. Roosevelt)

Yet more examples of our system of 'democratised dictatorship' under which we are presently forced to live.

From last Friday's Order of Business in the House of Commons

"5. COMMON FISHERIES POLICY (WITHDRAWAL) BILL: Second Reading.
Member in charge: Mr Peter Bone."

Which says: "(1) The Secretary of State must establish a Commission to report to Parliament
within six months of this bill coming into force the steps necessary to effect the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the Common Fisheries Policy. (2) The Commission will also establish and report to Parliament the steps necessary to restore the United Kingdom’s territorial fishing waters."

 "15. EUROPEAN UNION ACT 2011 (AMENDMENT) BILL: Second Reading.
Member in charge: Mr William Cash.

Which says: "1) A treaty, European Council decision or other legal instrument of the European
Union which provides for the creation of a fiscal union or economic governance within the Eurozone shall require approval by Act of Parliament and fulfilment of the referendum condition as set out in section 2(2) or 3(2) or 6(4), as the case may be, of the European Union Act 2011.

(2) Sections 11 to 13 of the European Union Act 2011 shall apply to a referendum held in pursuance of subsection (1) above."

Meaning that any such "treaty, European Council decision or legal instrument of the European
Union" would have to be put to a referendum.

Bearing in mind the order of those two Bills on the order paper, it is questionable whether there would ever be time for either of them to be debated before 2.30 pm, after which "only those Bills which are unopposed may make further progress".

Sure enough, we find that the first raises an objection and is now scheduled for debate on 25th November;  the second doesn't even get mentioned as Hansard shows that a jump occured from item 13, Kinship Carers to item 16, House of Commons Disqualification.

Ain't democracy wonderful when it can be controlled by those practising it?

As I began with a paraphrase of a quote, so shall I end it:

"Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people, by the political Executive, for the people."

(Paraphrasing Oscar Wilde)