Tuesday, 31 January 2012

Benedict Brogan - Sycophant!

It is said that anyone will swallow their pride and principles to "earn a buck" - and one only has to look at our political class and journalists to witness that is true (in respect of the latter, Benedict Brogan). In his customary 'op-ed' piece in tomorrow's Daily Telegraph, Brogan headlines his article with: "David Cameron is drawing his battle lines firmly in the centre ground.", beginning with the words: "It may infuriate his back benchers, but the PM is keeping his inner Tory suppressed".

First, David Cameron has no "inner Tory" - the man is a left of centre socialist! Brogan writes that the first duty of any party leader is to get his side into power and on that measure Cameron is impressively successful. Successful? Presented with an 'open goal', courtesy of probably the most incompetent Prime Minister this country has seen for yonks, Cameron put the ball in the net? Brogan continues that Cameron  has shown himself to be a natural at the business of governing, decisive when needed, calm, confident, able to delegate and communicate with ease. Decisive? How many 'U' turns has this man done?

"Consult any Conservative MP", continues Brogan. Now just why would we wish to consult any Conservative MP who is more interested in his/her career; who is more interested in conforming with their Whips' wishes in the hope of the personal advancement; who is no more than a paid mouthpiece? Why should we give Cameron, or his compliant MPs, another chance when all both are interested in is the present form of 'democratised dictatorship'? The remainder of Brogan's article is no more than his usual 'Big-up Cameron meme' - which forces me to ask where is the prime source of his income, the Daily Telegraph, or the Conservative Party?

It is understandable that, where Brogan is concerned, one cannot blame him for pursuing a course of career that has been shown to be a 'money-spinner' - namely creating a false scenario, after all is that not which politicians do?

Brogan, your name has 'gone on the list' - and that, unlike a knighthood for services to journalism, is not something you really, really want!

Scared To Death

From the Introduction of the book by the same title as that of this post (Authors: Richard North and Christopher Booker):
"In the night, imagine some fear, how easy is a bush supposed to be a bear"
A Midsummer Night's Dream, Act V, Scene 1
In the past twenty years, Western society in general and Britain in particular has been in the grip of a remarkable and very dangerous psychological phenomenon. Again and again since the 1980s we have seen the rise of some great fear, centered on a mysterious new threat to human health and wellbeing. As a result we are told, large numbers of people will suffer or die."
To 'dangerous and psychological phenomenon' I would add 'political news releases' (although same thing, really). It cannot have escaped the attention of those with a brain that when times get difficult for governments of all hues, suddenly there is a 'scare' or 'announcement of great concern'. Witness only today, when Cameron should have been skewered by his 'eurosceptic' backbenchers in the HoC (but wasn't - no surprise there, then!) another 'story' 'breaks', that of Fred the Shred being stripped of his knighthood. Ever noticed how, when awkward questions are asked of government, suddenly there is 'something' more important - an 'importance', the level of which is increased with the assistance of what is suppose to be an 'independent' media?

And we are not being 'thought-controlled'? We are not being 'led'? 'Newspeak' doesn't exist?

C'mon people - wise up!

A story 'doing the rounds'

It happened in an Underground station in London.*
"There were protesters on the concourse handing out pamphlets on the evils of Britain. I politely declined to take one. An elderly woman behind me was getting off the escalator and a young (20-ish) female protester offered her a pamphlet, which she politely declined. The young protester put her hand on the woman's shoulder as a gesture of friendship and in a very soft voice said, 'Madam, don't you care about the children of Iraq?'

The elderly woman looked up at her and said, 'My dear, my father died in France during World War II, I lost my husband in Korea and my grandson in Afghanistan. All three died so you could have the right to stand here and bad-mouth our country. If you touch me again, I'll stick this umbrella up your arse and open it.

* Needless to say the truth of this story cannot be authenticated - but I like the old dear's attitude........
(God Bless Great Britain - what there is left of it!)

Not so much with a bang, more like a simper.....

David Cameron's 'European Council statement' in the Commons this afternoon most definitely did not produce any outright rebellion from the so-called 'eurosceptics' as had been promised and one has to ask what happened to all the planning that was supposed to have been held in Edward Leigh's office last night?

Where were the 'searching and/or unanswerable' questions, ones to put Cameron 'on the spot'? For example, how can any action taken by those who have signed up to 'the treaty that is not a treaty so I couldn't have actually vetoed it in the first place' not encroach on the single market? All questions were couched in 'parliament-speak', a language which unless an MP is a wordsmith of great standing, as was Enoch Powell, ensures that any hint of sarcasm or ridicule is nullified. Even he who is held to be the greatest eurosceptic of them all, Bill Cash, missed the opportunity with what may be termed an extremely 'Cameron-friendly' question which was easily 'swatted away'.

It had been my intention to write further on this 'treaty that is not a treaty so I couldn't have actually vetoed it in the first place' but, as I write, I see that Richard North, EU Referendum, has beaten me to it. It is worth repeating the point Richard North makes; namely that Cameron still maintains the untruth he  vetoed a treaty when his own government spokesman has admitted that there was no treaty on the table. Note also that not one of the 'supposed' eurosceptics, those who were reportedly going to cause trouble, raised this point - not one and if they did it must have been when I turned the sound down on my laptop to answer a telephone call! Richard North writes that Cameron is guilty of misleading the House - but ever one to call a spade a spade, I would aver Cameron lied to the House. Unfortunately, in the HoC, one cannot utter the word 'lie'; which is probably due to the belief, one held among themselves needless to add, that politicians never lie - they just don't tell the truth!

Now watch the MSM swallow 'Cameron-speak' hook, line and sinker!

Afterthought: I see that David Cameron has stated that the decision to strip Fred the Shred of his knighthood was the right decision - if only we had the capability of stripping David Cameron of his position of Prime Minister - come to that, if only we had the capability of stripping the majority of MPs of their position........ The decision by Cameron (and he had a hand in it)  is 'democratised dictatorship' - the decision by us would just be 'democracy'........

Afterthought (2): Of course the news released now about Goodwin would not be a ploy to divert the public's attention from matters EU, would it?????

Monday, 30 January 2012

Cameron at Brussels - Sprouts!

Having watched SkyNews and Cameron's post conference press conference it is utterly amazing that the man is till maintaining there was a treaty on the table last December and that he vetoed it. The man is delusional, really delusional! (or just mad, plain barking mad and should be in Broadmoor)

Prior to that SkyNews showed pictures of the 'photo shoot' of EU Leaders (obligatory) and it did not escape my notice that once again Cameron was in the back row - the man obviously knows his place!

Just saying.........

Further food for thought

I am indebted to Richard North, EU Referendum, for pointing me to this site, "The Politics of Non-Violent Action" (1973). From that:
"In political terms nonviolent action is based on a very simple postulate: people do not always do what they are told to do, and sometimes they do things which have been forbidden to them....Political power disintegrates when the people withdraw their obedience and support. Yet the ruler's military equipment may remain intact, his soldiers uninjured, the cities unscathed, the factories and transport systems in full operational capacity, and the government buildings undamaged. But everything is changed. The human assistance which created and supported the regime's political power has been withdrawn. Therefore, its power has disintegrated. When people refuse their cooperation, withhold their help, and persist in their disobedience and defiance, they are denying their opponent the basic human assistance and cooperation which any government or hierarchical system requires. If they do this in sufficient numbers for long enough, that government or hierarchical system will no longer have power."
"Politicians love power-over. They crave the capacity to control the lives of large numbers of people. It is the politician's job to make us believe that he/she is committed to helping people, or making the world a better place, or carrying out the will of his/her constituency. In fact, a true politician has but one goal: acquisition of more power. Power for power's sake. Power for the thrill of it. Love of power to a politician is an end unto itself, like the love of art or music. Most politicians are corrupted with the lust for power-over, and deserve our utmost contempt."
The source of political power is not votes, it is money - money that is extracted from us by law in the form of taxation - be that income tax, VAT or Council Tax - laws they have imposed. Cut off part of that source and government's power is drastically weakened. In order to survive those in power must create a consciousness, or a system of beliefs. Any act that challenges the false premises that government's power is constructed upon is a threat to the hold they exercise through their power. Gene Sharp maintains that governments in power crave order - chaos is their enemy. Any act, no matter how innocuous it may seem on the surface, that disturbs the smooth-running social engine is a threat to their power. It is obvious that any act by an individual would probably have no effect on their power - however, suppose it was not an individual but thousands of individuals?

Let us play a game of 'just suppose'. Just suppose every self-employed person withheld their income tax, paying it into an 'escrow' account, until such time , for example, our politicians had extricated this country from the European Union, or until such time as the politicians agreed to instigate a recall system of MPs that was not subject to parliamentary approval? Just suppose that a thousand or two of us decided to visit the continent and return with cars laden with tobacco and alcohol, selling them off to local shops and small businesses while providing them with invoices. Just suppose those two actions were carried out simultaneously, what punishment could the authorities inflict? Imprison everyone? How, with our jails virtually at bursting point? Were the authorities to take action, in the time the due process of law took, the government of the day would have a bit of a problem with their balance of payments. Just suppose a thousand or two, within every local authority, withheld payment of their Council Tax. There are approximately 160+ local authorities in the UK - you do the maths. Just suppose a few thousand more, having seen the actions of some brave people, then decided to 'join the bandwagon'?

As a nation we do not 'take to the streets', it is not in our psyche - it is not the 'British way'. What is in the 'British way' is being downright bloody awkward - and I think we are pretty good at it.

There's more than one way to kill/skin a cat..........

Just dreaming.................


Following what is being reported as a 'U-turn' by David Cameron at Brussels today Guido Fawkes reports that the 'Malcontents' are meeting in the office of Edward Leigh, MP for Gainsborough.

Edward Leigh is obviously against the idea that this country - and he - should be told what to do by any other organisation because writing here, he states:
"This centrality of parliamentary supremacy to the British constitution cannot be over emphasised. The Victorian constitutional scholar A. V. Dicey wrote that Parliament – that is the Queen, the Lords, and the Commons together – has “the right to make or unmake any law whatsoever: and, further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament."
This of course is the same Edward Leigh who made an impassioned speech in the Council of Europe, just days ago, in support of a resolution that will mean, in the due course of time, the people of this nation lose the right, if they so wish, to end their own lives by "assisted dying".

One rule for MPs and one for us..................

Ugly Food

The Daily Telegraph reports that Laura Sandys, MP for Thanet South has called for mis-shapen fruit and vegetables to be specially promoted and sold in supermarkets. She is quoted as saying that a culture change, when it comes to our food, is necessary as it is rising in price to the detriment of families and that a re-evaluation of everything we grow is required.

Bearing in mind the culinary delights she no doubt samples when attending Westminster, it also seems Ms. Sandys is another of our MPs who believe that more government is the answer, which obviously compliments her belief that we need more EU integration.

On that basis perhaps it should be pointed out to Ms. Sandys that, more importantly, what is needed is a culture change when it comes to our politicians who, to the detriment of the people, are costing us more and that yes, most definitely a re-evaluation of those we elect, before we elect them, is also required as part of the process.

Sunday, 29 January 2012

Can we discuss priorities?

It would seem the media, blogosphere and twitter are consumed by subjects that, when all is said and one, appear low on a ladder of importance.

It would appear that we are consumed with the relative opinion poll standings of three political parties when an election is not scheduled for another 3+ years; whether a certain banker should, or should not, receive a bonus; whether Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper are 'undermining' MilibandE; what MilibandD earns; whether there is NHS care at weekends; whether there should be public funding for political parties; whether Jeremy Hunt's 'business interests' are legit or not and present a conflict of interest; whether Cameron's poll ratings are better than MilibandE's; whether Clegg is, or is not, 'on-board' where the Coalition is concerned; whether there should be more women members of the cabinet; and whether Theresa May is, or is not, a fashion icon.

Is the foregoing really all the MSM can find to speculate about? Do they, who are supposed to bring 'news' to their readership/viewers, not have a duty to 'question' the motives and policies that our politicians pursue, while pointing out discrepancies and alternatives? How else are the people to be made aware of what is obviously an 'Armageddon' situation into which they are being led, both politically and economically?

People, there is no point in complaining about the state of our nation; about 'unacceptable' levels of immigration; about our society being changed beyond all recognition; about the decimation of our armed forces; about the failures in our health and education services, about the deficits/failures where law and order are concerned; about the venality of our political class, until you get off your butts and physically do something about it. It is utterly pointless, besides being a waste of your time and effort, complaining about such matters until a decision is made that it is necessary to change the cause of all these problems, namely those that inhabit Westminister, the bureaucracy and the media.

As I posted only yesterday, when you, the people - who act like sheep - are corralled to the extent that you have no personal liberties remaining; when your nation is no more than a region of an EU/World government; when that which you read and hear is controlled by politicians and bureaucrats; when your every thought, word and deed is no longer yours to choose, I will guarantee the loudest voices of complaint will be yours - at which point I would have to request you go look in a mirror and ask whose fault is the situation in which you find yourselves?

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

State funding of political parties

From the BBC we learn that the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee has published its thirteenth report on the matter of political party funding - although the term 'report' is a tad generous in that it is more like a 'minute'. Reference is made to the report produced by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, whose four main recommendations were:
"A limit of £10,000 should be placed on donations from any individual or organisation in any year to any political party with two or more elected representatives in Westminster or in any of the devolved legislatures.

The cap should apply to donations from all individuals and organisations, including trade unions. But it would be possible to regard trade union affiliation fees as a collection of individual payments, to which the cap applied individually, by requiring the individuals on whose behalf the payments are made to opt in to the fee. It would also be necessary to meet certain other conditions to ensure that undue influence cannot be exerted.

The existing limits on campaign spending in the period before an election should be cut by the order of 15 per cent.

Existing public support to the political parties should be supplemented by the addition of a new form of public support paid to every party with two or more representatives in the Westminster Parliament or the devolved legislatures. The public funding should depend on the number of votes secured in the previous election, at the rate of around £3.00 a vote in Westminster elections and £1.50 a vote in devolved and European elections. Income tax relief, analogous to Gift Aid, should also be available on donations of up to £1,000 and on membership fees to political parties.
Personally, I am of the view that political parties should exist purely on donations from the public and from their members, thus the 'richest' political party would be the one whose views most resonated with the public.

Digressing slightly it is interesting to note that in Switzerland only two cantons, Ticino and Geneva since 1998 and 1999 respectively, have had legislation governing the disclosure of political donations. The canton of Ticino requires parties to report donations of over CHF 10,000 to the cantonal chancellery. The amount of the donation and details of the donor must be given. In the canton of Geneva, political parties are required to submit their accounts and the names of their sponsors every year to the cantonal financial inspectors. The Federal Council has dealt with several calls for increased transparency in the funding of political parties, including the motion by social democrat Max Chopard proposing "Increased transparency in the funding of political parties". It has rejected the demand for statutory regulation and advocated voluntary measures, on the grounds that there are many issues regarding implementation, enforcement, enforceability and sanctioning options. In addition it is felt that pressure from the state could make people less willing to become involved in political matters, and it is precisely this willingness that direct democracy draws life from.

Saturday, 28 January 2012

But what response to the question will there be?*

"Away with the whims of governmental administrators, their socialized projects, their centralization, their tariffs, their government schools, their state religions, their free credit, their bank monopolies, their regulations, their restrictions, their equalization by taxation, and their pious moralizations!"
Frederic Bastiat
All of which could be annulled by the introduction of direct democracy with a tad of 'referism'.

And the problem with my solution is..........?

* Assuming of course anyone understands the principles of direct democracy and 'referism'?


Political principals

Iain Martin writes in the Daily Telegraph, an article of nine paragraphs - and which on first reading I was about to dismiss as nine paragraphs of the usual political written excreta - when it dawned on me that actually it was rather good in that it showed up the lack of principle Cameron - and politicians in general - actually have. With the points raised, Martin shows (although he probably hasn't realised it) how every decision Cameron has made has been for one reason only, namely to maintain his position and grip on power. In a related article in the same newspaper, Christopher Booker likewise shows how a politician, in this case Obama, is concerned only with his career - and therefore, in common with Cameron; to hell with principle.

That the people seem content to allow and continually partake in a system which permits what amounts to the practice of dictatorship, - and this in a system that is supposed to be democratic - beggars belief. It is beyond doubt that both Obama and Cameron are, indeed, Judas Goats leading we, the sheep, to our slaughter both metaphorically and physically. But then sheep are supposedly held to be 'brain dead', are they not?

Where, oh where, is the politician or journalist willing to educate the people and show them how they are being screwed by the political class? Of the former it can be said that Nigel Farage does try - however it would seem he has been handed the wrong script. In the journalistic field the only ones who spring to mind are Ambrose Evans-Pritchard and Gerald Warner - and possibly Norman Tebbitt, although doubts remain there.

When the people are safely corralled it is obvious from whence the loudest bleating will come - yup, the sheep!

The 'Guardian' of political rule

An editorial in the Guardian caught my eye in which they raise the point that the move by Alex Salmond for Scottish independence, if successful, may well cause Wales and Northern Ireland to seek the same conditions - a point already raised days ago on this blog.  That the editorial does not expand on the idea suggested is, I suppospposing e, only to be expected when considering the Guardian is part of the MSM. What, for example, would be the numbers of representatives in this Federal upper house?

The editorial's suggestion is based on a continuance of 'representative democracy', a system that is surely passed its "sell-by date". The fact the editorial does not even attempt to question what other systems of democracy are available, ones which might break the yoke of 'democratised dictatorship' under which we are presently 'enslaved', is indicative of the relationship twixt politicians and the media, thus giving the impression that both politicians and media are indeed 'all in it together' in order to maintain the status quo. That the positions adopted by Alex Salmond and David Cameron in this argument are those purely to cement their own personal ability to exercise their hands on the levers of power dictatorship is one that would appear to have escaped the attention of the MSM.

That there is an alternative system of democracy available, one which would halve the number of MPs, disband both MSPs in Scotland and AMs in Wales, while returning power to those that matter, namely the people, is not even hinted at. After all, are not we supposed to be cutting our deficit? Should not all ways to accomplish that not be considered? Silly question really, I suppose.

The right to life

The Daily Telegraph reports that the Council of Europe have stated that euthanasia and assisted suicide should be banned in every country in the Continent. The article states that an explicit condemnation of euthanasia was inserted into a non-binding resolution entitled: "Protecting human rights and dignity by taking into account previously expressed wishes of patients", a resolution which can be read here. Point 5 of the resolution states:
"This resolution is not intended to deal with the issues of euthanasia or assisted suicide. Euthanasia, in the sense of the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit, must always be prohibited. This resolution thus limits itself to the question of advance directives, living wills and continuing powers of attorney."
"alleged benefit"? If, as enshrined in Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, everyone has a right to life then is it not also their right if they wish to end that life? What this resolution is calling for is the blanket imposition of a denial to the right of individual choice for people - and those who voted for this are practising the art of dictatorship, no more no less. Not that this is anything new - deciding what people may or may not do would appear to be the sole reason politicians exist.

The people of country 'A' may decide that assisted suicide is permissible, while those in country 'B' may vote that it is not. People of country 'B' wishing to travel to country 'A' to exercise their right to terminate what is theirs - and theirs alone - should not be criminalised.

Just saying........

Friday, 27 January 2012

While 'Rome' burns........

.....while this country is subsumed further into a European State; while democracy in this country is 'trashed' not just by the EU but also by our own political elite; while our society is changed beyond all recognition; while our 'human rights' are led into a maze from which there is no escape; while our country is left virtually defenseless; while health and education are 'tinkered with', once again, to satisfy political ideology; while any sense of law and order is reduced to ridicule; while our parliament becomes but a 'talking-shop' filled with 'muppets'; while civil servants and bureaucrats are consumed with following a 'common purpose', one with no benefit to our country; while our money is used to support a currency of which we don't accept its raison-dêtre; when our prime minister once again does a 'U' turn over fiscal policing of the eurozone...........

.... the leaders of our three main political parties believe bank bonuses and chocolate oranges are the important matters 'du jour'.

To quote 'Private Jones' Fraser (so I am informed. Ed) we are indeed doomed!

H/T: Goodnight Vienna (@CallingEngland) for the initial idea for this post rant.

What a surprise - not?

Via Politics Home we are advised that Dav il Cam is to challenge the idea of 'devo-max' where the question of Scottish independence is concerned because 'it would affect the whole of the UK'.

And this is news? I suppose, to the 'talking heads' amongst the MSM, it is, but for those of us with a brain it was obvious that granting 'devo-max' to Scotland would also have entailed granting the same to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. In so doing it would also have taken away virtually all the powers that politicians possess, ones they have gradually usurped from the people over time, thus rendering them powerless. It would also further call into question why 600, let alone 650, MPs are required and just what would we be paying them for.

To have granted 'devo-max' would have been to grant the beginnings of direct democracy - and that is the last thing Dav il Cam and his fellow sycophant politicians want! These bastard politicians are control freaks and like the EU, control over our own lives is the last thing they will grant us.

Once again, just saying.........

If only they meant it......

Courtesy once again of The Albion Alliance Presents we are informed of an 'initiative' by the European Union, one in which the suggestions of citizens are requested. Unfortunately there are one or two 'conditions' that are required to be met.

My own proposal would be for the Commission to disband itself after rescinding every Treaty, Directive, Regulation and Opinion it had issued - and then to disappear up its own 'exhaust pipe'!

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

This will be accomplished.......

.......by the introduction of direct democracy and referism, because only then will we be able to put the grown-ups back in charge.

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

If there exist a danger of an 'undemocratic' and dangerous EU........

........why the hell, exactly, are we still a member? An article has appeared on Conservative Home about statements made by William Cash, John Redwood and Bernard Jenkin, during the recent backbench debate on the European Council.

Cash maintains that: "A house divided against itself will fall, and the situation will be worse still if it is built on sand". Far be it for me to point out to such an august figure as William Cash, but the House of Westminster is divided (albeit by means of a large majority and a small minority) and it matters not whether it is built on sand or mud. Maintaining that the EU is 'undemocratic' (which we all knew, but thanks for 'informing' us) he also voices his fear that if something is not done to address this deficit in democracy it has the potential to present a breeding ground for the far right. Why only the 'far right'? Why should the 'far right' be the section of society singled out as potential trouble-makers? What, exactly, is it Cash is calling for? Is he in fact saying that making the EU 'democratic' is then acceptable and we should remain a member? 

We then have that 'renowned' eurosceptic, John Redwood, entering the discussion, stating that the present situation is a crisis of democracy. Err, how can an organisation renowned for being undemocratic have a crisis of democracy? Do we not have a 'crisis of democracy' in the UK? He complains, regarding the EU, that: "We see in some of these countries that the electorate change the Government but they do not change the policy". Has he looked at the UK lately? Did we not change our government and does not the policy remain? So Redwood's point is?

Last, we have Bernard Jenkin, another supposed eurosceptic, stating that we should 'divide and rule' (whatever the hell that means) "because it would be in our interests if the Euro succeeded with a democratic settlement in the European Union". So by practising 'divide and rule' it would be possible for the euro to succeed with a democratic settlement in an undemocratic organisation?

What exactly is it that these three men want? Do they want 'In' or 'Out'? Do they want to waste their time discussing a deficit of democracy in an organisation to which membership is not mandatory? Would they not be better discussing the deficit of democracy in their own country, a deficit compounded by our membership of the aforesaid organisation? 

I believe it was Autonomous Mind (or was it Richard North) who devised the description of 'plastic' when describing Conservative sceptic MPs. In these straightened times it behoves us to use our plastic sparingly. I have for some time been of the opinion the account on which these three cards were provided has long been out of credit so their continued availability is pointless - and we all know what to do with worthless cards, don't we?

Who to believe: Vaz or Straw?

Only yesterday when posting about a parliamentary debate I pointed to Keith Vaz complaining that MPs are so busy they do not have time to deal with matters EU. Well, well, today we have Jack Straw complaining that MPs have little legislation to consider and that they need some meat to deal with. One's first impression is that one of the two is telling porkies, however on reflection it is possible that both may have opened yet another Pandoras Box.

Some MPs, like Vaz, are it seems extremely busy with the promotion of themselves, whilst also following Ronald Reagan's maxim for all that is wrong with 'government', namely that if it moves, tax it; if it keeps moving, regulate it and if it stops moving subsidize it. Straw, it seems, wants more time to do just that. Odd that ministers felt it necessary to state that the Commons has a 'balanced diet' when it is widely known that they dine extremely......oh sorry, just noticed the additional words: 'of business'. On the other hand, if MPs have time to debate bills as ministers maintain, why is it necessary that time constraints are imposed? If Vaz is correct, then what are these other matters of such importance that limits his time? If Vaz is so busy with these other important matters, what is Straw not doing that he should be doing? Perhaps both could make their diaries available for public inspection?

If Straw is correct then the reason is obvious - with more and more areas of government being ceded to Brussels it stands to reason that there will be less and less for our politicians to do. In which case perhaps our MPs could debate the subject of their own existence and whether they are in fact necessary. Perhaps MPs could debate the cost/benefits of our membership of the European Union? Perhaps MPs could debate the question of treason and whether charges should be brought against those politicians that have routinely denied the British people a say on our membership of the European Union? Perhaps MPs could debate the question why we have so many quangos and advisory bodies advising them, yet maintain that they, the politicians, are the only ones capable of deciding important matters of state. Perhaps MPs could debate whether our system of representative democracy is in fact fit for purpose and the benefits people might gain by a change to direct democracy and referism? There is so much MPs could do, but don't!

Even better, when not inside the House of Commons, perhaps our MPs would just keep quiet?

Thursday, 26 January 2012



Don't you just love 'Administrators/Bureaucrats?

From the Hastings & St. Leonards Observer:
"People who miss next week's tax self-assessment deadline will not be fined because of a strike by tax-office staff. HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) said it will not be issuing penalties to anyone who files their tax return on February 1 or 2. Equally, those who have tax to pay will not face any interest on payments made on February 1 or 2. HMRC's acting director general of personal tax Stephen Banyard said: "We've always been very clear that we want the returns - not the penalties. For that reason, we don't want anyone who can't get through for help and advice on January 31 to be disadvantaged in any way."
Two minutes ago, on Classicfm, a repeat of the advertisement on behalf of  HMRC and voiced by Moira Stewart, threatening a £100 fine - even if you owe nothing - for failure to file by 31st January!

One can but quote Victor Meldrew............

Cameron 'governs' the UK? Does he hell!

Exhibit 1: Richard North, EU Referendum, quotes Cameron on the subject of maritime safety saying that:
".......if changes need to be made, including on the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises, of course we will make them."
Exhibit 2: European Commission - Mobility & Transport:

Maritime Safety: Commission requests the United Kingdom to comply with new safety rules and standards for passengers engaged in domestic voyages [IP/12/57]:
"If this Member State fails to inform the Commission within two months of the measures it has taken to ensure full compliance with EU law, the Commission could refer the case to the EU Court of Justice.....The United Kingdom has failed to notify the Commission of all the measures taken to enforce the new Directive although required to do so by 29 June 2011. The United Kingdom has only notified the Commission of partial measures of implementation."
Not maritime. but related:

Driving licences: Commission requests Denmark, Lithuania, the United Kingdom and Portugal to adopt measures on driving licences [IP/12/55]
"Directive 2006/126/EC updates Directive 91/439/EC on driving licences, by for example introducing new driving licence categories and a harmonised period of validity of the driving licence document.......Denmark, Lithuania, the United Kingdom and Portugal still have not fully transposed this Directive into national law, although they were required to do so by 19 January 2011."
January and June 2011? 2011??? Oops!

One wonders who will get put through the carwash and/or keelhauled? Hammond or Greening? The latter is lucky in that she is 'justin' time to qualify.

Afterthought: The two items quoted above were as a result of news from The Albion Alliance Presents - a site well worth bookmarking!

Time to call a halt

The Purple Scorpion posts on George Eustice's comment on the operation of Structural Funds from the EU and his comment that "There is no such thing as EU money. We simply get some of our own money back". Echoing the cry of Richard North, EU, Referendum, one has to ask Eustice: just who is this "We"? TPS rightly comments:
"It follows that there is no such thing as UK government money either. Remember that, George, every time you eat a subsidised meal at Westminster. That money belongs to the people, to your constituents. That goes for every penny your government spends."
With acknowledgement to 13th Spitfire, on the same subject it is worth Eustice remembering that governments cannot give to anybody anything that governments do not first take from somebody else.

Bruno Waterfield reports on another, what might be termed political, scam whereby MEPs receive thousands in cash to subsidise visits to the European Parliament for their 'constituents'. Then of course there are those enjoyable 'fact-finding' trips abroad, at our expense, for MPs and MEPs and 'second homes' so necessary for our MPs to 'function'. Oh and why are we paying MPs £64K per annum when they are, in some instances, earning that from their 'outside interests'?

As Richard North, EU Referendum, posts, why are we paying for Dav il Cam to 'lecture' at Davos that "Europe" must "stop throttling growth with excessive bureaucracy" whilst rolling out a massive amount of climate change legislation, and at the same time supporting Basel III and the EU's programme of turning it into law?

Is it not time that we said and did something? Like insisting on a form of direct democracy and 'referism' - the latter a means by which, before the political class can spend our money, they have to ask our permission; and the former a means by which we have the ability to halt policies with which we do not agree?

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

The EU's 'law-grab'

The Daily Mail advises us that the EU now wants power to set 'Euro-crimes' punishments in our courts, continuing that eurocrats were last night accused of making a ‘massive power grab’ which would allow Brussels to dictate laws to Britain and decide punishments in our courts. This is presented as 'news', following the debate in Parliament yesterday, although the EU Commission document to which the Mail refers - and about which the debate was held - is actually dated 23rd September last year. The delay twixt the publication of the document and the parliamentary debate is no doubt due, as Keith Vaz complained, to the fact that MPs are too busy that they simply do not have the time to cover European issues, and therefore rely heavily on the European Scrutiny Committee to alert them if anything is going wrong. This begs the question of what, exactly, our MPs could do - were they so inclined - on any matter EU whilst they continue to acquiesce to Brussels, but again I digress. Thought: Perhaps if MPs spent less time worrying about how chips are arranged on their plates, the cost of their food and drink; oh - and gave up their directorships and 'advisorships' they may have a tad more time for their primary occupation?

A number of important points were made: Kate Hoey was correct when she pointed out that the most iniquitous thing about all this continuing opting in and moving into an ever-closer European Union for this country is the fact that the British people have never given their permission for that to happen, a point Crispin Blunt, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice, underlined in his summation to the debate when he stated that the Government will continue to examine the content of European Union criminal law proposals and our participation in them on a case-by-case basis - no mention of the people, it will be noted. Bill Cash was also correct when he made the point about 'tendency', whereby in almost every area, the original proposals—from Maastricht, through to Nice, Amsterdam and Lisbon—have adopted a minimalist approach at the beginning, but then expanded, moving further and deeper into the areas of competence that have been acquired. Cash was also correct in his assertion that all that was being discussed is liable to be decided under Qualified Majority voting (QMV) where Articles 82-86 are concerned.

Reverting to the point about government deciding matters with no reference to the people, on this subject I was struck by that which Geoffrey Cox said. "It is to this House that citizens of this country entrust the moral judgments that underlie decisions about what should be criminalised and what should not". I note that we are now 'citizens' - thus distancing us from the political class - rather than 'people' and Cox should realise that the people have no option but to entrust the moral judgment on matters because the people are never asked for their opinion; they are only ever told what their opinion should be. That is a rather neat example of 'democratised dictatorship', something which is replicated in virtually every 'Act' that is passed by Parliament.

Crispin Blunt also made much of the 'emergency brake' whereby Member States can pull that so-called "lever" if they consider that proposed legislation touches upon fundamental aspects of their national criminal justice system: from Europa we learn that to balance the introduction of QMV in the area of judicial cooperation in criminal matters, the Lisbon Treaty introduced a procedure called the “emergency brake” to protect the interests of Member States. It allows Member States to bloc the adoption of a legislative proposal and to send it to the European Council, if they feel that the proposal has an impact on fundamental aspects of their criminal law system. In such a case, co-decision procedure is suspended. After discussion, and if there is a consensus, the European Council, within 4 months of the date procedures were suspended, then sends back the proposal to the Council, which then ends the suspension of the normal legislative procedure or co-decision. If there is no consensus, within the same timeframe, a minimum of 9 Member States can proceed with enhanced cooperation on the basis of the original proposal. Reverting to the point Cash made about the EU's method of operating whereby a minimalist approach occurs at the beginning, but then expands, moving further and deeper into the areas of competence that have been acquired, what price that in say 10 years time Protocol 21 (which covers the UK's ability to opt in/out on freedom, security and judicial matters) is changed/annulled/overriden - which, in a manner of speaking, would rather 'Blunt' Crispin's emergency brake.

To finish on a lighter note, on reading Vaz's short mention of his school days with Andy Slaughter and the fact that he (Vaz) used to try to avoid being in class with him because their names were adjacent on the register, and when they were read out in quick succession—"Slaughter", "Vaz" caused comment, my immediate thought was: 'if only'.

Wednesday, 25 January 2012

Cameron and the ECHR

Courtesy of The Talking Clock, on Twitter, comes the words of Lord Denning, in 1986, on the matter of justice:
"I wish that I had put down my name to this amendment because it is important. As it is so impossible to understand what this is all about I must explain it.

The European Court has been overwhelmed with cases and cannot get through them. It is therefore seeking to make a number of lower courts—called attached courts—to deal with the gross overloading of work. That is the essential part of the article concerned, which in two or three places is a whole page long. The important point is that it is to set up a series of courts of first instance which would try cases on fact final, on law, and with appeal to the European Court.

I wish also to add a word about the European Court and its methods, which have been applied. They have been considered quite recently in the Court of Appeal in England. I am dealing with cases under those important articles 85 and 86 which deal with commercial matters of the first importance—abuse of a dominant position and unfair competition. Companies from the United Kingdom are closely involved in these matters. One case on those sections came, when I was sitting in the Court of Appeal, between an English Company, a garden cottage one, and a great English milk marketing board. The case I mentioned of 1985 was in the Court of Appeal between, again, two English companies, one from Belfast and the other from England. The case was all about repairing cameras, unfair competition and the like.

That last case went to the European Commission and thence to the European Court of Justice. I shall not go into the details of it, but the Master of the Rolls, Sir John Donaldson, said it was totally unlike anything in our judicial system, with both sides being heard and dealt with then. Instead, it went before the European Commission, who were themselves treated as the investigators, almost as the prosecutors, and who carried it through, as Sir John Donaldson said, quite dissimilarly from our own English procedure. Indeed, he said that it was to be regarded as administrative and not judicial at all. The Commission, were, if you please, acting, as I would think sometimes they do on the Continent, as an inquisitorial system, enforcing their own view, instead of as an adversarial system which the law of England has always maintained.

The question which I am seeking to raise before your Lordships this afternoon is: Are the subjects of Her Majesty to be compelled, for their rights and defences, to go over to Europe to courts manned by European judges with a procedure quite unknown to us, a procedure which our own courts have said is not judicial in the least but merely administrative? Are we to let British subjects go over in that way?

Now I come to the British Constitution. We have a basis which is quite unknown in Europe. Each one of us, and each judge (certainly each one here) has the oath of allegiance to the Queen and, corresponding to that in our constitution, is a duty on the Queen to protect us. By our constitution the Queen is the source and fountain of justice. It is at her behest that we have Royal Courts of Justice here; it is at her behest that our judges are Her Majesty's judges, and it is at her behest, for the protection of all of us in response to our allegiance to her, that she sets up the courts of justice to hear and decide our disputes.

I would like to emphasise that unknown in Europe is this constitutional principle of the allegiance of the British subject on the one hand, and, on the other, the duty of the Crown to protect the British subjects. Let me remind your Lordships of the oath of allegiance. It is constitutional, the oath which every Member of your Lordships' House takes, and it is from an Act going back 100 years or more: I do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God. Every one of your Lordships knows that oath of allegiance. It is part of our fundamental constitution. Let me remind you of our judges' oath as well: I do swear that I will well and truly serve our sovereign lady Queen Elizabeth the Second in the office of a justice of the High Court, and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm without fear or favour, affection or ill-will. There is our judicial system deriving from the Crown as the source and fountain of justice. No court can be set up in England, no court can exist in England, except by the authority of the Queen and Parliament. That has been so ever since the Bill of Rights.

This is also part of our Constitution: corresponding to that duty of each British subject to the Queen, the Queen herself is under corresponding duty to protect British subjects in our rights, which we have inherited all the way down the line. I remind you that the Roman Empire had the same duty. There is Paul and so on: "Can you do this to a Roman citizen?"—Civis Romanus sum. You all know that quotation. Did not Palmerston say in 1850, in his greatest speech: 
As the Roman, in days of old, held himself free from indignity when he could say 'Civis Romanus sum, so also, a British subject, in whatever land he may be, shall feel confident that the watchful eye and the strong arm of England will protect him from injustice and wrong.". That duty in England, the duty of protection of our citizens, the correlative of allegiance by the Queen, is done by provision of the police force to protect us, and by the courts of justice which she has established.
I need not go into all the cases. This principle can be found back in the time of Lord Coke, in Calvin's case, as between England and Scotland: Ligeance is the mutual bond and obligation between the King and his subjects, whereby subjects are called his liege subjects because they are bound to obey him; and he is called their liege Lord because he should maintain and defend them.". The most recent illustration of it is the China Navigation case, reported in 1932 King's Bench. So the Queen is bound to protect us and to afford courts of justice on which we can rely and to which we can go.

In Europe that constitution is unknown. There is no one source or fountain of justice in Europe. Let me tell you the oath which, under this Treaty of Rome, each judge takes: I swear that I will perform my duties impartially and consistently, and preserve the secrecy and deliberations of the court". I repeat: I will perform my duties". What are those duties? Nowhere are they spelt out in the Court of Justice except in Article 162: The Court of Justice shall ensure that in the interpretation and application of the Treaty the law is observed". The only duty of those Community judges is a duty to see that the law is observed; in other words, that Community law is observed, not the law of England. There is no duty to protect the British subject. Are we then today to say that British subjects are not to go to our courts in England or to Her Majesty's judges in order to secure justice; and that they are not to seek the protection of the law as we know it under the hearings and procedures which we have established over the centuries, but to go to an attached court, to the Court of Justice in Luxembourg?

According to this proposed article the attached court will operate according to the same modes of procedure as at the moment. It is a procedure and process which has already been condemned by the Court of Appeal in England as quite dissimilar from our English law and indeed merely administrative. Are British subjects to be compelled to go there?

That is my criticism of this article which is mentioned in two or three places in this part of the group that we are discussing now, as I tried to point out, because you cannot see it other than by reading through them. There it is in Amendment No. 42 on the Marshalled List: The provisions of Article 168A of the EEC Treaty"— that is the article that we are now considering and it is the one which establishes these attached courts in Luxembourg—shall not be interpreted or applied so as to enable any such attached court to sit in the United Kingdom, or to exercise any jurisdiction over British subjects resident in the United Kingdom". That is subsection (1).

Subsection (2) states: In lieu of the jurisdiction of any such attached court, every British subject resident in the United Kingdom and owing allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen shall be entitled to the protection of Her Majesty, according to the law of England, administered by Her Majesty's Judges sitting in the Royal Courts of Justice under the Rules of the Supreme Court". I am stressing the constitution there.

Then in subsection (3) there is a parallel jurisdiction where we do it ourselves: If and in so far as under Article 168A … any such attached court is given jurisdiction to decide disputes according to Community Law, a like jurisdiction shall be exercised by Her Majesty's Judges also to decide them according to Community Law (in so far as that is made part of the law of England …)". So there it is. It is simple and intelligible, I hope. All it is saying is that we British subjects owe allegiance to the Queen and the Queen is under a duty to protect us. She has performed this duty by providing the Royal Courts of Justice to which we can take our disputes and have them decided by Her Majesty's judges. We should not be compelled to go over to a court in Europe manned by we know not whom or in what circumstances in order to go through a procedure and process that are altogether unknown to our law and which the Master of the Rolls has said are quite dissimilar to our own procedure and practice.
And our politicians are, in general, in agreement that membership of the ECHR is essential for social justice? Of course, allowances have to be made for David Cameron who did not start work in the Conservative Research Department until 1988, so he was probably concentrating more on 'Bulling(don)about' with the likes of Boris to take an interest in that which was happening in the real world. It is also debatable whether the Philosophy content of his PPE actually included any aspect of history and the philosophy that our forebears in history had - but I digress.

That is probably why the man who believes in change has spent part of today trying to argue for change in the presence of the unchangeable!

Pause for thought?

An email I received, as a result of yet another rant about the EU, suggested that a petition should be raised on the government website calling for the UK government to be abolished as it was completely unnecessary due to all laws coming from Europe. 

When I suggested this might not be a good idea, whilst we remain a member of the EU, as it would only hasten that which the EU wishes as the 'final solution', the reply was received that it might just result in MPs indulging in what they do best, namely self-preservation, and consequently they might just begin to do that for which we pay them.


More Humour......

....in view of my preceding post, one in the same vein. Previously posted nearly three years ago, although probably guaranteed to upset the ladies, it is a small piece that Mary Archer wrote for what was a Rag Week magazine, I believe.

The Fair Sex.

Element: Woman

Symbol: Wo

Discoverer: Adam

Atomic Mass: Accepted as 55kg but known to vary from 45kg to 225kg

Occurrence: Found in large quantities in urban areas, with trace elements in outlying areas

Physical Properties: Boils at absolutely nothing, freezes for no apparent reason, melts if given special treatment, bitter if used incorrectly

Chemical Properties: Affinity to Gold, Silver, Platinum and all precious stones. The most powerful money reducing agent known to man

Common Use: Highly ornamental, especially in sports cars. Can be a very effective cleaning agent

Hazards: Highly dangerous except in experienced hands. Illegal to possess more than one, although several can be maintained at different locations as long as specimens do not come into direct contact with each other

The discovery of a perverse, perplexing atom

What follows is rather old and may be known to some, however it is worthy of repetition. Courtesy of JoNova comes notice of something written by William Debuvitz in 1988 and appeared in the January 1989 issue of The Physics Teacher. William DeBuvitz was a physics professor at Middlesex County College in Edison, New Jersey (USA), retiring in June of 2000.

"Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) announced the discovery of a perverse, perplexing atom.
The new element is Governmentium (Gv). It has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.
These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lefton-like particles called peons.
Since Governmentium has no electrons or protons, it is inert. However, it can be detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A tiny amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction normally taking less than a second to take from four days to four years to complete.
Governmentium has a normal half-life of 3-6 years. It does not decay but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places.
In fact, Governmentium’s mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes.
This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical morass.
When catalysed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium, an element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons. All of the money is consumed in the exchange, and no other byproducts are produced."

Whilst 'we' knew this.........

........it is nice to have it confirmed. From Angela Merkel, quoted in the Guardian:
"My vision is one of political union because Europe needs to forge its own unique path. We need to become incrementally closer and closer, in all policy areas. Over a long process, we will transfer more powers to the [European] Commission, which will then handle what falls within the European remit like a government of Europe. That will require a strong parliament. A kind of second chamber, if you like, will be the council comprising the heads of [national] government. And finally, the supreme court will be the European court of justice. That could be what Europe's political union looks like in the future – some time in the future, as I say, and after a goodly number of interim stages."
The 'goodly number of interim stages' would appear to be well under way, as Helen, Your Freedom and Ours, posts. (Follow the link Helen provides to read the actual exchange in Lords Hansard). So much for the European Union Act! Meanwhile Richard North, EU Referendum, writes that "Angela Merkel, according to Reuters, has rejected as "unfounded" stereotypes about a domineering, dogmatic Germany.......".

As Captain Ranty writes - be afraid, be very afraid. However, to free yourself and your nation from a very nasty, very greedy, very unaccountable, very obviously power-hungry unelected group calling themselves the EU, first we have to free ourselves and our nation from a very nasty, very greedy, very 'unaccountable', very obviously power-hungry group calling themselves our government!

And the only way we are going to do that is by adopting direct democracy and 'referism'!

Tuesday, 24 January 2012

The United Kingdom

Benedict Brogan, Daily Telegraph op-ed piece for tomorrow, writes that Cameron won't save the Union by descending into the gutter - to which one has to respond that Brogan won't save journalism by following the same plan.

What we have here, as in so much that Brogan supposedly composes, is but another "Big-up-Cameron" piece and if this is the best that he can offer one can but suggest that he follows his own advice, namely indulging in lengthy periods of silence.

Does not each of the LibLabCon indulge in 'soft nationalism' - until such time as the choice has to be made twixt EU membership and that of their country? In respect of Scotland, 'soft nationalism' has been on the agenda since 1968 when Edward Heath raised the matter at the Conservative conference. Of course, had our politicians not indulged in what amounts to sectarianism coupled with their pursuit of power; had they adopted the principle of direct democracy, the problems of today, where Scotland is concerned and where Northern Ireland and Wales are also concerned, albeit to a lesser extent at present, none of the present problems regarding nationalism would exist.

On that last point I am reminded of a quotation by Benedict Anderson (this Benedict seemed to know what he wrote about) who said:
"I propose the following definition of the nation: it is an imagined political community-and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign. It is imagined because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion.... Communities are to be distinguished, not by their falsity/genuineness, but by the style in which they are imagined.... Finally, [the nation] is imagined as a community, because, regardless of the actual inequality and exploitation that may prevail in each, the nation is conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship. Ultimately, it is this fraternity that makes it possible, over the past two centuries for so many millions of people, not so much to kill, as willing to die for such limited imaginings."
Did we, as a United Kingdom, not fight wars to preserve that Kingdom, that Nation? Is it not politicians that have, for their own purposes, attempted to create divisions that do not, in reality, exist? On a wider front, is it not politicians who for their own purposes have created the European Union and in so doing created divisions, through their policy of regionalisation, within each Member State?

Yes, we are English, or Scottish, or Welsh, or Northern Irish - we can, understandably, trumpet our individuality - but at the end of the day we are and can be a United Kingdom, one that could exist quite harmoniously under a system of direct democracy - whilst allowing each nation its own 'identity'.

Don't let politicians, for their own nefarious reasons, split our United Kingdom! Please?

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

The logic of the public sector.......

......or in this case the educational sector, ones you would have thought of all public sectors would be in possession of a brain.

Dick Puddlecote posts on a family problem he recently encountered - and I leave you to walk over to his place, something a child is considered able to do - and amuse yourself, something which that same child is not considered able to do.

If a child, aged 10, is considered able to undertake a 20 minute walk, on his own from one place to another, surely that same child must be considered able to look after himself? Apparently he needed 'looking after' - why? Did they believe he might take the opportunity to indulge in pre-marital sex, or some lesser offence such as reading a book, while waiting to see his sister perform on stage?

Where, in this decision, can it be shown to be fostering 'family values' - something trumpeted by Dav il Cam? Of course, this attitude exhibited by his daughter's school is founded on the fear that they may be subject to a court case for 'compensation' should something untoward happen to his son. But as DP asks, in a school with over 100 staff they could not find someone to 'cover their arses'?

More importantly, parents pay for this level of 'service' by way of taxation?


The dangers of 'representative' democracy

The Mail reports on a deal concocted by Blair, which had the backing of Peter Hain (then Europe Minister) in which co-sovereignty of Gibraltar would be 'granted' to the Spanish as part of 'manoeuvering' within the EU in order to nullify moves by Germany and France. Peter Hain also reveals that Blair - and he - were prepared to 'ride roughshod' over any objections. And Hain has the audacity to describe Blair's towards the attitude towards the Gibraltarians as 'contemptuous'? Blair may well deny he thought Gibraltar should be “run by Spain” and nor was he “contemptuous” of it - yet why should we believe the denials of someone belonging to a class of our society who have shown a preference for the arts of lying, venality, unprincipled and dishonourable behaviour?

The sad fact is that within our current system of democracy, had this plan 'gone through', what exactly could the Gibraltarians or the people of this country have done to block it? Bearing in mind this decision took place in 2002, just where in Labour's manifesto for the 2001 general election was this policy mentioned? This matter is a prime example of what I have termed 'democratised dictatorship' in that it shows that politicians will use people as pawns in their desire for self-aggrandisement.

As to whether Hain is correct in his recollection, or Blair is correct in his denial can best be summed up by two quotations - the first by Bertrand Russell and the second by Leo Tolstoy. Russell is reported to have said that a stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand. Tolstoy reportedly said that in order to get power and retain it, it is necessary to love power; but love of power is not connected with goodness but with qualities that are the opposite of goodness, such as pride, cunning, and cruelty.

To repeat, this 'Gibraltar matter' demonstrates that for ages politicians have treated those they are suppose to serve as mere chattels, ones to be bought, sold, exchanged, or even killed, in their pursuit of power - and these practices need to be halted, permanently. That our governments have too much power is, again, underlined by another quotation - one from R.J. Rummel in "Death by Government":
"The more power a government has the more it can act arbitrarily according to the whims and desires of the elite, and the more it will make war on others and murder its foreign and domestic subjects. The more constrained the power of governments, the more power is diffused, checked, and balanced, the less it will aggress on others and commit democide."
The first sentence of that quotation demonstrates why we presently suffer a form of elected dictatorship and the second sentence why a form of direct democracy, with a dose of 'referism, is so urgently needed. 

Whats new?

Once again courtesy of The Albion Alliance Presents comes notice of another pronouncement, this time from the European Economic and Social Committee who state:
"Europe is undergoing a far-reaching financial, economic and social crisis, with thousands of companies going out of business, higher unemployment, falling salaries, budget cuts in social security systems, rising poverty and social exclusion."
Yup, that is usually the end result when a group of half-brained - and therefore incompetent - socialists get their hands on the political levers of power.

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

Jacques Santer - SPIV!

The Purple Scorpion notes that Jacques Santer, ex European Commission President, who was forced to resign, along with the entire Commission, amid allegations of corruption and fraud, has been appointed as Head of the eurozone’s ‘Special Purpose Investment Vehicle’.

Of course to those of us of a certain age a Spiv was someone of questionable ethics, so just for once perhaps the EU has made the right decision with this appointment.

Anyone but the big three? No!

Courtesy of The Albion Alliance Presents we are treated to the latest outpouring of Staffan Nilsson, President of the European Economic and Social Committee. With the LibLabCon fully 'signed-up' to that type of hogwash verbal excreta - and putting it into practise - is it any wonder that this call surfaces?

Whilst that call is understandable, what seems to have escaped the notice of those making that call is that with our present system of democracy it matters not who you vote for as all the elite of any political party are interested in is power - personal power, the privileges that that brings, the chance to 'grandstand' on the world stage, etc - nothing else, least of all the best interests of the country they are supposed to serve. Neither would it make any difference were a similar call to vote for independent, ie non-aligned, candidates be put into practise as the present 'democratised dictatorship' pattern of government would continue. Why is that contention is so hard for people to understand? Why are people so apathetic that they continue to allow themselves to be used as mere pawns in a political game of chess? In that game the pieces (us) remain the same, it is just the hands that move us about that change; and unfortunately for us those hands have exactly the same 'game plan'.

As I repeatedly maintain, the only way to end this situation is for the adoption of a form of direct democracy, with a dose of 'referism' included.

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

That 'Referism' thingy again

Philip Johnston has a comment piece in today's Daily Telegraph entitled: "Here's my tax - now where's it all going.", an article in which he mentions that Ben Gummar, Tory MP for Ipswich, is introducing a backbench motion requiring the Treasury to publish a detailed, personal cash breakdown of where our taxes are being spent. This idea does not solve the problem that the state is still able to extract money from the people without beforehand showing just cause.

In May last year Richard North, EU Referendum, posted about 'Referism', in which he wrote:
"This is achieved by the annual referendum – a mandatory, unchanging part of the constitution. It requires the administration to go to the people each year to ask them for money, and it empowers people to say "no". That is real power. Anything else is play-acting."
That is what should happen, the state presenting the people with an 'estimate/quotation' which can be accepted, rejected, or certain parts queried with a request that they be looked at again. That this should also happen with local authority demands for funding cannot be denied. As an aside, it is heartening to see an MP and the media 'picking-up' on an idea initially floated in the blogosphere - but again, I digress.

We learn today from this article in the Daily Telegraph that UK public debt has passed the £1 trillion mark for the first time, as the Government borrowed nearly £14bn last month despite its continued austerity drive. Was permission sought of those who will have to service that £14bn loan? No. Was it explained why that £14bn loan was necessary and for what it would be used? No.

Referism is part of the idea for a system of direct democracy being discussed at talkconstitution.net and in approximately 1/14 days time articles will appear on that site with a proposal for a constitution, limitation of government and how government should operate at every level, namely from national through counties down to parish level. One thing for sure - the politicians won't like it which means that it probably is a good idea!